virtual centre of excellence for research support … · d1.2 mid-term report i abstract: the...

MID-TERM REPORT I D1.2

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological

development and demonstration under grant agreement no 313288.

VIRTUAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR RESEARCH SUPPORT AND COORDINATION ON SOCIETAL SECURITY

01.01.2014

31.12.2018

[email protected]

Coordinator:

PRIO

www.societalsecurity.net

http://www.prio.no/

http://www.societalsecurity.net/

D1.2 Mid-term report I

Abstract: The mid-term report measures the mid-way performance of the project against its

principles and objectives.

Contractual delivery date: M19

Actual delivery date: M19

Version: 1

Total Number of pages: 29

Contributors: PRIO, KCL, VUB, VICESSE, CEPS (workpackage leaders)

Dissemination level: PU

Deliverable submitted 31 July 2015(M19) in fulfilment of requirements of the FP7 project, SOURCE – Virtual Centre of

Excellence for research support and coordination on societal security (SEC-2012.7.4-2: Networking of researchers for a high

level multi-organisational and cross-border collaboration)© Copyright 2014 the SOURCE Consortium (PRIO, FOI, CIES, FhG,

TNO, CEPS, VUB, VICESSE, KCL, EOS, TEC, Sciences Po). All rights reserved. This document may change without notice.

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Summary of the first period ............................................................................................................ 2

2. Workpackages activities .................................................................................................................. 2

2.1. WP2 – Network-building, coordination and integration ......................................................... 2

2.2. WP3 – Societal Security Survey ............................................................................................... 3

2.3. WP4 – Security professions and institutions ........................................................................... 4

2.4. WP5 – Societal security of financial systems........................................................................... 5

2.5. WP6 – Ethics, law and human rights – upcoming activities .................................................... 6

2.6. WP8 – Observatory and documentation hub ......................................................................... 6

2.7. WP9 – Communication, dissemination and knowledge-sharing ............................................. 7

3. Deliverables & Milestones ............................................................................................................... 9

4. Meetings, workshops & Events ..................................................................................................... 10

5. First review meeting ...................................................................................................................... 11

6. First Midterm meeting .................................................................................................................. 12

7. Recommendations from the User Advisory Board ........................................................................ 12

8. Recommendations from the Ethics Advisory Board...................................................................... 14

Annex 1: Agenda of the Review Meeting .............................................................................................. 15

Annex 2: Presentations at the Review Meeting .................................................................................... 17

Annex 3: Agenda of the first midterm meeting .................................................................................... 27

D2.5 – FP7 – 313288

1

Introduction

The report summarises the main achievements and progress made in the project and presents the

upcoming activities in the second period. The report serves as a supplement to the Periodic Report 1

and presents the main recommendations and conclusions of the first review meeting. The report also

follows the first mid-term meeting of the project. The recommendations of the boards following the

mid-term meeting are also presented in this report.

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

2

1. Summary of the first period

The first one-year period of the SOURCE project started on 1 January 2014. Seven of the nine

workpackages started their activities which resulted in 11 deliverables.

During this first year of the project, a strategy was developed for the management and expansion of

the Primary Network. The first step was to outline a strategy for the management of the network and

for the coordination of the extensive workshops activity linked to it. Afterwards, a comprehensive

survey of the five network sectors was undertaken through a Survey Meeting. This survey generated

concrete data and conceptual knowledge about the available modes of interaction between each of

the sectors which served as basis for establishing claims about security values, political priorities,

social norms, cultural ideals, morals etc. These claims were then catalogued and analysed, and a map

of the inter-linkages, correlations, associations, and determinacies they represent was created.

Another important step in the first period has been the stocktaking of existing survey through a

methodology workshop. The exercise allowed dealing with the main question of how to assess

societal security by reviewing available empirical knowledge on perceptions of security in society.

This also represented the first phase of a three-step research approach heading to the creation of an

annual societal security report that will provide the SOURCE Network of Excellence with empirical

data and insights on perceptions of societal security.

The first year has naturally also been dedicated to the development of the dissemination and

communication tools and materials including the website, intranet, visit cards, brochures, templates

for public deliverables, template for newsletters etc.

2. Workpackages activities

2.1. WP2 – Network-building, coordination and integration

By PRIO

WP2 started its activities with the development of a strategy for managing the large Primary Network

which was developed during an internal meeting (26 February) and further discussed within the

Steering Committee and resulted in D2.1. The report outlines the network strategy, activities,

communication, financial and management plan. The presentation of the network coordination plan

was also set as a milestone (MS1) which was thereby reached as planned. Since the start of the

project 10 more people have joined the Primary Network. The Consortium has identified a vast

potential for growing the Network further in the coming periods.

The first activity with the network took place through a ‘sector survey meeting’ for gathering

conceptual knowledge about the available modes of interaction between the five different sectors.

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

3

The results of the meeting were then complemented in another report by desk-research and an

online survey to further analyse the modes of exchange between the relevant sectors.

The results of the sector survey meeting were used in addition to a desktop research in to establish

an overview and analysis of modes of exchange between relevant sectors, which resulted in D2.1.

Although not planned initially, a questionnaire was developed by Fraunhofer in order to generate

more data. The preliminary results of the online questionnaire will served as basis for the following

report.

2.2. WP3 – Societal Security Survey

By VICESSE

WP3 started at month 1 and runs through the whole life cycle of SOURCE, producing annual societal

security reports, based on empirical investigation. During the first year of WP3 the basic

methodological, conceptual and logistical problems for the societal security survey were addressed

and solved. It was decided to use an approach combining multiple data sources, based on reactive

and non-reactive methods of data collection and covering different dimensions of societal security.

1. An online survey was drafted and launched, using standard survey methodology to collect data

across different countries. This survey includes elements from the European value survey and other

standard instruments to make it comparable with available statistically representative data

collections. This survey was translated into several languages and can be accessed via the SOURCE

and the VICESSE webpages. Besides a number of standard European languages (English, German,

French, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Spanish, Slovak) versions were produced in Arabic, Farsi and

Turkish to lower thresholds for non-European respondents. Addressing populations from these

language communities though requires elaborate efforts, since they are typically not linked to what

could be called a consumer-survey culture, even when living in Europe. Representatives of ethnic

communities were approached to inform them about this survey and asked them to circulate the

information through their networks. Although this survey is designed for a quantitative analysis, a

statistical representative results at a European level was not the aim. It was nonetheless hoped that

it would produce results that can be compared with findings from other European surveys. The basic

idea is to address respondents who are often underrepresented in survey research and to contrast

the results with findings from other European research projects, focusing on issues relevant for

societal security. This survey will remain online over the complete life cycle of the project and can be

adapted if deemed necessary.

2. Face-to-face interviews in a number of European countries started at the end of 2014 and the first

wave will run until summer of 2015. This first round was targeting respondents who often are not

included in mainstream survey research. Are approached individuals who are exposed to security and

surveillance measures as either members of socially marginalized groups or due to their being

exposed as journalists or activists in NGOs working in the area of surveillance and control. Interviews

are based on a general guideline and are electronically documented to produce a larger database for

in-depth qualitative analysis of what we termed the perception of “mundane security”. Interviews

are conducted in Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Norway, the Netherlands and UK. For the next wave of

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

4

interviews we will target security experts, working in the different domains collected under the

umbrella term societal security (from law enforcement to environmental security to financial

security). The plan is to focus on specific groups in the annual waves of interviews.

While interviews and online survey are limited in scope due to limited resources, three other data

sources used allowed for a wider quantitative coverage. Data from Twitter and Wikipedia (3) will be

analysed as well as a number of data bases termed “proxy indicators” (4). Over the year, there was

also a real time coverage of security relevant events by mainstream European media (5).

3. Samples of Twitter feeds are collected on a daily basis, using two different samplings strategies.

This will produce a data set between 50 and 70 million individual tweets that can be analysed using

different methodologies. Hit rates on Wikipedia are also analysed for a number of key concepts

related to societal security. Both of these types of data can help to better understand the dynamics

of arousal and concern as they emerge in the virtual sphere of online communication.

4. Following up on an initial idea, developed to handle the limitations of exploratory qualitative

research, we started to work on a number of publicly available data bases for different European

countries to design a grid for a comparative analysis based on differences in typical indicators like

crime rates, income distribution, provision of social services. These indicators were selected on the

basis of hypotheses about the connection between socioeconomic and social policy developments

and the state of societal security. Since these indicators are rather stable over time, they mainly can

be used to compare societies at the level of individual nation states.

5. Following media coverage of security relevant events provides the basis for what we call a

“chronique scandaleuse” documenting public arousal in media discourse. Taking such events and

observing the reaction on Twitter or Wikipedia can help to better understand the complexities of

public perceptions of security.

The abovementioned data sources have been exploited over the last year to different degrees. They

will be systematically harvested over the coming months to produce a rich database for analysis in

WP3 to produce the annual societal security report for 2015 (D3.5), due in month 24. We consider

the societal security survey as a living tool and are planning to create synergies with other Work

Packages, in particular, but not only WP4 and WP8.

2.3. WP4 – Security professions and institutions

By KCL

In the first year, WP4 worked on the main output, i.e. D.4.1, which presents a number of

methodological options for mapping the professions and institutions of societal security in Europe.

The survey of policy and academic literature reveals three main discourses of societal security.

Private companies speak of societal acceptance of the surveillance technologies that they market,

Nordic agencies of civil defence speak of societal resilience, and intelligence services speak about the

protection of a wide range of societal interest which go beyond national or State security. The key

theoretical move consists in locating those three discourses and their actors in a broader social

context that we call the transnational field of European security professionals. As a result of this

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

5

move, we hypothesize that the three “societal securities” result from a structural transformation of

this field. On the one hand, the private kind of bureaucratic capital is becoming more and more

important. On the other hand, actors are driven to master an ever-increasing amount of socio-

technical resources.

In the coming year, the WP4 team will implement the following work plan, with a view to mapping

the controversies and agencies of societal security. We are first building a relational database

documenting the following institutions: EU agencies of security and liberty, Nordic institutions of civil

defence and safety, European private companies of security. This database, which will not be public,

will yield different datasets to be fed into three visualization techniques: Multiple correspondence

analysis, multi-level timelines, and social network analysis. Secondly, the team is committed to

investigating controversies related societal security. Two such controversies have been selected: one

on mass digital surveillance and privacy and one dealing with deaths at sea and border control. In

mapping those controversies will confront academic discourses, by the means of scientometric

methods, and actors’ discourses, by the means of web-crawling of relevant websites.

2.4. WP5 – Societal security of financial systems

By PRIO

The first deliverable of work package 5 began with different definitions of financial security (as

pledge; financial instrument; smooth consumption; financial stability) as well as recent

entanglements of finance and security in the form of the securitization of finance and the

financialisation of security. Both of these can be seen as strategies to address the liberal problematic

of security of securing circulation. Interdependencies and flows pose different problems than

territorial protection and necessitate a cognitive shift to think security in terms of circulation,

complexity and contingency. 'Catastrophic events' are produced from within intelligent evolving

systems and consequently there is no outside to societal security. In this context, the risk calculus has

become central to both financial and security practices, driving circulation as well as insuring against

its pitfalls. The probability distribution is increasingly challenged by radical uncertainty and the report

concludes with an analytical assessment of risk and uncertainty in the respective fields of finance and

security.

Next steps: Presentation of D5.2 and D5.3

The next deliverable will take a detailed look at the various mechanisms securing financial circulation.

Starting with a framing of financial circulation as critical infrastructure, global financial flows will be

mapped according to volume and intermediaries, including the best estimate possible for the so-

called shadow banking system. Rather than located somewhere offshore in the Carribean shadow

banking is substantially practiced by European banks. Different security mechanisms to be examined

include financial regulation, monetary policy, collateral, credit ratings, financial surveillance and safe

havens. Here a pre-crisis account will be contrasted with a postcrisis assessment. The third

deliverable will focus on societal security in a post-financial crisis environment. Rather than a return

to normal, European societies find themselves in a 'new normal' of permanent crisis adaptability. The

report will examine how defining elements of societal security such as 'meaningful existence'

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

6

(Burgess), risk perception and societal values have changed due to the crisis and give an overview of

'alternative' finance practices such as peer-to-peer lending and local currencies.

2.5. WP6 – Ethics, law and human rights – upcoming activities

By PRIO

Task 6.1, Human Values in Threat Analysis, addresses the topic of ethics, law and human rights in

societal security from the perspective of values. It does so with a view to the sectors identified in

WP2: academics, policy makers, end-users, industry. National and EU wide threat and risk

assessments as related to societal security are used as a looking glass into basic conceptual and

empirical questions of the role of values in conceptions of societal security within these sectors.

The scope of the analysis includes values in conceptions of security; values s in responses to security

measures; values in public responses to threats; values in popular narratives of threat

In the first part of the report, there will be an overview of how different conceptions of values in

social and political theory produce different theoretical understandings of the role of values in

societal security. In the second part, it is analysed which conceptions of values are underpinning

threat analyses/risk assessments at the national levels in selected European countries (through

discourse analysis). In the third part, it is analysed what the actual process of formulating risk

assessments of societal security is, including the question of how the threat analyses are used by

public institutions and private individuals and what this tells us about the role or values.

2.6. WP8 – Observatory and documentation hub

By VUB

Media watch: Preliminary research and preparation

The first year was largely exploratory and focused on creating a solid ground for the construction of

the media watch. Actions included scanning of similar initiatives, feasibility testing, designing the

filtering and organisation systems, and on selecting the right partners for programming.

As the term societal security is not often used in media, and the term security not comprehensive

enough for the content we desired, we conducted a keywords analysis. We scanned over 100 societal

security related documents for keywords. Additionally we collected hundreds of suggested keywords

from the SOURCE consortium partners. Based on these keywords as well as the domains identified

and suggested in deliverable 3.1 we created a first filter system for collection of online news media.

The second part of the work conducted in year 1 for D8.4 consisted of identifying how to realise the

online media watch. A scan of existing online media watches was conducted along with analysis of

existing technological possibilities for crawling, data mining, organising and displaying online news.

Research conducted included technical specifications and limitations, as well as possibilities for

visualising the vast amount of data to be collected from the various (English language) media sources

around the world. A decision was taken to build our own media watch rather than using a pre-

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

7

existing service. Reasons for this include options to be open source, ability to select functions

according to needs, longevity (safety in case service providers would cease to exist) and financial

feasibility. By the end of 2014, the preliminary design and technical specifications were completed,

and a programming company was subcontracted for close collaboration.

Next steps

Once final bug fixing and optimisation of the media watch has taken place we will start the official

testing period. All Project partners, who have time allocated to this task, will be asked to spend 1-2

hours per week on the media watch, for a period of 4-6 weeks and to report articles that are there

and should not be. They will email us the task leaders with the url of the article, and reason why it

does not belong (does not belong in domain, does not belong in media watch and/or other

explanation). Also, we will send all partners the current list of domains, key concepts and topics to

allow them to make additional suggestions for adding or removing terms. Once this period of testing

and tweaking terms, we will have an improved version of the media watch.

The Database

The Media watch (D8.4) and the database (D8.6) are related, thus the work for the media watch will

serve as a preparation for building the database. The research conducted for the media watch

described above is thus also useful in part for the database, as far as keyword analysis, and data

organisation is concerned. Additionally, a number of existing online document databases in other

fields were scanned for comparison. We have collected a number of documents that will be added to

the database once it is online, thereby ensuring that it will be useful from the onset. The structure of

the information as well as fields to be entered when uploading content into the database has been

created.

2.7. WP9 – Communication, dissemination and knowledge-sharing

By CEPS

The workpackage has been ensuring the publication and visibility of the project outcomes since the

beginning of the project and it will continue doing so till its end and even beyond. Its main objective

is to coordinate the internal and external dissemination of information collected or generated by the

project. All partners are therefore involved in this task and a strong participation by PRIO, VUB,

Sciences Po & FhG has been clearly seen during this first period. The task of communicating the

project results is a shared responsibility with all the consortium partners. For this, the Dissemination

WP benefits from an interconnection with all WPs, specially with WP2, WP6, WP7 & WP8.

One of the key dissemination tools for promoting and ensuring the dissemination of the results has

been the Project Website (www.societalsecurity.net). The website is first-stop source of information

on societal security for the public sphere. It has been enhanced and it will keep on improving till the

end of the project and beyond. It provides a window to all the Publications, information on Events,

structure and objectives of the project, News → Links to Surveys, Newsletter, Journal and

Observatory. It is user-friendly and it is easy to see and access the latest information on Homepage.

http://www.societalsecurity.net/

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

8

The latest additions have been the Blogs, Video interviews, partners in the media and the legal and

technological Cards.

Furthermore, the website also allows direct access to the different media tools available, such as

Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. All the partners have been reminded to use and contribute with

their inputs through the media tools.

Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/pages/Source-Societal-Security-

Network/1458047431122893. Each partner should send events’ pictures, information

and news on new publications. It also important to choose the option ‘Likes’ in order to

promote its visibility and interest.

Twitter → https://twitter.com/source_eu. Each partner should contribute with 1 twitter

feed every week by including in their messages @source_eu.

LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=7455200. Each partner member

should add it to their personal or organisational profile.

In addition to the website, the SOURCE partners benefit from an Intranet side accessible for the

partners with a Username and Password (http://intranet.sourcenetwork.eu/home). It consist of a

Virtual platform where all the partners can:

Find internal documents (administrative, financial as well as draft deliverables) → Depository

See the calendar of events and internal dates

Check relevant documentation, exchange/share interesting News internally in the network

and;

Interact → Use Blogs

Important Coordination Tool → It offers also the possibility to assign Tasks to the different

partners.

Other key tools that have promoted the dissemination of the project’s outputs have been: The

establishment of a Quarterly Societal Security Newsletter, organization of various meetings and

events, SOURCE publications and the elaboration of Surveys. In addition, the Dissemination WP has

also created a Flyer, created Blogs and initiated the production of Video Interviews with key partners.

Further, the project will also count with an electronic Journal, Training & Teaching Modules and the

set-up of a Database containing all relevant documents.

Next steps

Launch of the second issue of the Newsletter.

Increase of the frequency of dissemination e-mails (Internally and Externally). There will be an

internal dissemination e-mail sent to all the partners weekly informing them on interesting

publications and events, and another sent to all the project’s dissemination contacts with the

relevant outputs or news on the project monthly or weekly depending on the activity.

New features for a dynamic website:

Interview Videos

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Source-Societal-Security-Network/1458047431122893

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Source-Societal-Security-Network/1458047431122893

https://twitter.com/source_eu

https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=7455200

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

9

Current news – technology & legal cards (monthly)

Inputs from partners on the national/local media

Blogs (monthly)

Mediawatch selection of news (weekly)

Podcasts from meetings

Partners’ contributions are crucial to ensure a proper and effective communication of the project’s

results. For this, at the end of the consortium meeting, it was agreed that the partners will need to

contribute to the dissemination strategy by providing:

1 twitter feed every week,

2 news item per month,

1 blog post per month,

And by keeping the calendar updated on events happening in every country.

3. Deliverables & Milestones

16 deliverables were planned throughout the first period, 11 of which were submitted. The

remaining 5 were submitted shortly after the beginning of the second period.

There were frequent delays in the submission of the deliverables with only 5 submitted on time. 4

deliverables were submitted within 2 weeks after the deadline, 1 deliverable was delayed by 2

months, 1 was delayed by 3 months, and 5 deliverables weren’t submitted in the first period as

planned.

The 2 planned milestones were reached according to the schedule.

MS1 Networking plan and work plans are established and evaluated

MS2 Sector Survey completed

Deliverables submitted in the first year:

D1.1 Inception report (PRIO, planned M7, delivered M4)

D2.1 Network Coordination Plan (PRIO – planned M4, delivered M5)

D2.2 Workshop Coordination Plan (CEPS – planned M4, delivered M5)

D2.3 Sector Survey Meeting and Report (FhG – planned M7, delivered M8)

D2.4 Overview and analysis of existing modes of exchange between relevant sectors (FhG –

planned M9, delivered M12)

D3.1 Methodology workshop and review of available empirical sources (IRKS-Research –

planned M4, delivered M6).

D3.2 Survey handbook and complementary research strategy (IRKS-Research – planned M11,

delivered M12).

D4.1 Report on theory and methodology for mapping of societal security networks (KCL –

M9)

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

10

D4.4 Approval of national data protection authorities (KCL – M9)

D9.8 Webpage construction/management & Journalism and Social Media (CEPS – M3)

D9.3 Journal: Technology, Security & Society (PRIO – M12)

4. Meetings, workshops & Events

Project meetings

28.01.2014: The first project meeting – the Kick-Off Meeting – took place on 28 January 2014

in Brussels at the Fondation Universitaire, rue d'Egmont 11. All partners in the consortium

were present for this full day meeting. The first General Assembly took place on the same

day. More information about the meeting can be found in deliverable D1.1 Inception Report.

26.02.2014: An inception meeting for workpackage 2 was organised on 26 February 2014

in Brussels at the Research Council of Norway, Rue du Trône 98. All WP2 partners were

present. The Steering Committee had their first meeting on the same day. More information

about the meeting can be found in deliverable D2.2 Network Coordination.

Internal meetings

19.03.2014: IRKS and Fraunhofer met on 19 March 2014 in the premises of Fraunhofer INT in

order to discuss the methodological approach to apply in the workshop concerning Task 2.3

‘Sector Survey’ and Tasks 2.4 and 2.5.

21.03.2014: IRKS organised a Methodology workshop and review of available empirical

sources (T3.1) and also discussed the structure, plan and discuss the research strategy for

WP3, on 21 March 2014 in the premises of IRKS at Musuemstraße 5 / 12 in A-1070 Vienna.

The task partners were present: IRKS, FOI and TNO.

17.06.2014: PRIO, CEPS and VUB met over skype to discuss the Communication Strategy in

SOURCE and assign clear roles and responsibilities to each partner in terms of

communication and dissemination. A Communication Management Plan followed the

meeting and was sent to the whole consortium.

18.09.2014: PRIO and VUB met over Skype to discuss the different tasks and way forward in

WP8.

19.09.2014: VUB, TNO and EOS met over Skype to discuss Task 9.15.

12.11.2014: Fraunhofer and VUB met over Skype to discuss Task 8.2.

Public events:

20.06.2014: CEPS organised a Lunchtime Policy Meeting with Viviane Reding (then

Commissioner and Vice-President for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship), as

keynote speaker. The audience was composed out of EU and national policy-makers,

practitioners, academics, representatives of NGOs and CSOs, journalists and general public

(around 60 participants). The event was financed through the Consortium Networking fund.

Workshops with external guests

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

11

04-05.06.2014: IRKS organised the Sector Survey Meeting (Task 2.3) on the 5th of June 2014

in the premises of the VUB in Brussels, Pleinlaan 5. The consortium members met on the 4th

of June to familiarize with the concept of the workshop, rest run the workshop setting and

simulate their role in the meeting. The workshop with external experts took place the next

day with the aim to generate data and conceptual knowledge about the available modes of

interaction between the five different sectors. The data generated in this workshop (T2.3)

were document in D2.3 and analysed by Task 2.4 partners. The Steering Committee had their

fourth meeting on the same day.

17/18.11.2014: SOURCE workshop organised by KCL: Mapping the Professionals Of ‘Societal

Security’ In Europe, King’s College, Strand Campus, London. With the participation of PRIO

and CEPS as presenters and Sciences Po and VUB as participants.

General Assembly & Steering Committee

The General Assembly met ones during the Kick-Off meeting. The Steering Committee met 10 times,

on planned monthly Skype meetings. All the reports are made available to the consortium members

on the intranet.

5. First review meeting

The first review meeting took place at the Research Executive Agency premises (16 Place Rogier,

Brussels) on the 28th of January 2015. The REA Project Officer, 2 external reviewers, and all the

SOURCE workpackage leaders were present during the six hours meeting. The meeting started with

an overall presentation of the project followed by an overview of the progress done in the first

period. Every workpackage leader then proceeded to a presentation of their workpackages’ main

achievements and results. The meeting continued with a presentation of the management activities,

a financial overview of the reporting period and finally with an overview on the upcoming period. All

the presentations are presented here in annex.

The main points addressed by the reviewers were the following:

Increase coordination efforts in order to reduce delays in the submission of deliverables

Address the IPR issues regarding the Media Watch

Start with a preliminary business plan

Increase collaboration with other projects

Structuring more the involvement of the Primary Network as it is the focal point for a

Network of Excellence

Establish a more detailed plan on Data Protection issues

Security professionals in the industry should be also targeted

Make further efforts to make sure that Source is better ranked in the Google search

The consortium is encouraged at having the highest possible numbers of attendees at the

symposium to be organised in Brussels: all members of the Primary Network are highly

encouraged to attend; the coordinator should also invite the coordinators from most

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

12

relevant FP7 projects (security but possibly from other themes as well) together with policy

makers (e.g. from the EC but also from the EP)

6. First Midterm meeting

The first midterm meeting took place in Brussels at the CEPS premises (1 Place du Congres, Brussels)

on the 28th of April 2015. All the consortium partners had one or two representatives. Two members

from the User Advisory Group and one member of the Ethics Advisory Board were also present to

evaluate the progress made in the project. The full-day meeting started with an overview of the main

activities and results achieved in the first period. The partners thereafter discussed the coming

dissemination activities and research activities. The main best practices on how to deal with ethical

issues, how to communicate about the project, how to get funding for organising events and the

submission of deliverables were reminded by the coordinator and communication team. Before

discussion the way forward, the board members were invited to provide their comments and

recommendations. A summary of those are here below.

7. Recommendations from the User Advisory Board

By Ana María Padilla Beltrán and Bengt Sundelius

SOURCE is off to a good start. The initial year was devoted to setting up the project infrastructures,

to get to know participants and to reflect upon the promised deliverables down the line. By necessity

this year was primarily inward looking. However several study reports were produced, presented and

well received at the annual meeting. These are not end products for the library, but future project

activities will draw upon these early results. The academic components of SOURCE have performed

well so far.

We noted that the psychological aspects of security, such as perceptions of risk, safety, or fear, were

not covered in the meeting. This dimension is very important for public sentiments, for trust building

but also for the professionals working in the security field. Behavioural science could contribute more

to the work and the results of this project.

The hoped for bridges to industry, policy shapers and to end users have not yet materialized. This

was a main focus of the discussions of the annual meeting as the management is very aware of this

limitation so far. The representatives of EOS contributed significantly to that discussion. Bridging the

well known gap between science and practices, both in the public and in the private sector, remains

the major challenge ahead for SOURCE leadership. Most likely also the next annual meeting will

address this common concern.

Educational activities are planned as ways to transfer research result to those that need to know

more or to improve practices in their areas of work and responsibility. More reflections are needed in

the project on how to design educational and training programs to serve the needs of various

audiences, including school level pupils. Here one size does not fit all, but one must be sensitive to

the needs and abilities of each audience.

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

13

Annual symposiums are planned and also this form of knowledge diffusion needs to be the subject of

more reflection by the team. Is the main purpose for researchers to meet each other, for researchers

to enter into dialogue with practitioners and if so at what level? Is the symposium an open or a

closed event? Should the theme be wide and open to many interests or more narrowly focused on

one policy domain or one type of stakeholder interest? Most likely, any wide ranging annual

symposium needs to be supplemented by several thematic workshops where participants can dig a

bit deeper into their areas of expertise. The suggested June workshop on the future of policing seems

like a good beginning of such a workshop series.

A proposal for a SOURCE journal was presented and it generated considerable discussion. While all

agreed that the aim is not for another academic journal, like the Journal of Peace Research or similar,

there seemed to be some variance among participants about having a policy focused journal, like

Security Dialogue has been, or more of a Newsletter for brief current reports and perspectives

offered by stakeholder advocates. The presentation in the meeting did not quite reflect the written

memo on the planned journal. It is our impression that this discussion about the aim, scope and

editorial policy of this journal is still ongoing and floating among different preferences.

When an emerging field of scholarship and practice develops it is generally very helpful to invest in a

journal that helps define this field and where the leading actors from research, teaching and

practices may enter into written dialogue. Some form of quality control of submissions is needed by

an editorial team and this should not be delegated away to visiting editors for special issues, at least

not during the early years of the journal. Editorial judgment and peer reviews offer quality control,

but the criteria for such reviews should be adapted to the purposes of this journal which is not

strictly academic in its mission.

SOURCE leadership needs to think through and articulate how and why this multi-year project may

add concrete value to very busy end users, policy shapers and businesses. These actors are not

patiently awaiting results from the project, but must be attracted to the project and be convinced

that it offers something worth their limited time and resources. The push factor of the eager project

members needs to be complemented with a convincing pull factor among its eventual beneficiaries.

This pull factor has not yet been identified by the project leaders for public officials, for end user

operators or for profit seeking business people.

A risk of project fragmentation was evident at the first annual meeting. Each WP is focused on its

own deliverables and mildly interested in those of the other WPs. A well-articulated holistic frame

surrounding societal security is needed to pull the project elements together and coherently forward.

This conceptual frame should then be operationalized into distinct elements, where actors and

stakeholders can recognize each attribute when they see it. A journal, a symposia, a website and

other manifestations of an emerging field may assist in creating this holistic frame for the various

parts of this project. SOURCE leadership is needed both for ensuring administrative order and for

adding substance across the distinct WPs. SOURCE is a network based project, but without a visible

and strong node this network may not hold together and survive the initial funding period.

Much discussion focused on activating a SOURCE Website as a core feature of this project. This is a

necessary but not a sufficient tool for the kind of integration and development of a new field that

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

14

SOURCE has the potential to generate. The EC funding includes an obligation to deliver, but even

more so the grant is an opportunity to make a major difference for the study, teaching and practices

of security in Europe.

We offer some recommendations on the external and communicative aspects of the project to help

it provide a lasting inprint on European security research and practices.

Decide on the preferred orientation of the Journal; aim, scope, readers, editorial policy.

Decide on purposes and orientation of the Annual Symposia; many formats and purposes are

possible and all with pros and cons.

Decide on a thematic workshop series of notable value to stakeholders.

Decide on educational activities for different audiences. Set priorities among these

audiences.

Strengthen the role of the primary node - PRIO - also regarding giving substantive and

thematic direction and guidance for the whole network.

So far there is every reason to expect that SOURCE will mature into a successful, multi-year project

that will lay the foundation for an emerging field of societal security and a relevant network of

scholars, teachers and reflective practitioners that work together over time toward substantive and

procedural synergies.

8. Recommendations from the Ethics Advisory Board

By Anke Van Gorp, Chair of the EAB

Before the project meeting I have read deliverables 2.4, 2.5, 4.1 and 5.1. The only comments I had

were related to personal data that were going to be collected related to the mapping of professions

and institutions within societal security. I have advised not to try to use Linked-in to create maps,

because it is not allowed (see the user specifications). This point was already addressed by

Christoffer Liden. The other point was the questions that are going to be used in interviews include

questions about trade union membership, income, profession parents and grandparents. Some of

these questions request special personal data (notably trade union membership). I have asked

whether this was necessary, which the researchers think it is. My advice is to report only on

aggregate levels because a map of a network with individuals will make indirect identification

possible. The researchers agreed and had already changed their ideas: they want to map institutions

instead of professionals.

The simulation game about asylum seekers being sheltered in churches or temples was very

interesting to me and I have sent it to my colleagues. We will probably use this in our revised

program Safety and Security Management Studies.

When discussing the upcoming workshop on pre-crime or preventive policing, I have advised the

consortium to focus on a specific technology because preventive policing refers to very different

techniques such as geo-spatial predictions of burglaries to techniques used to flag possible financing

of terrorism. The questions regarding societal security and human rights are different when

regarding different techniques.

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

15

Annex 1: Agenda of the Review Meeting

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

RESEARCH EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Security Research

Source 1st

Periodic Review – Agenda Date: 28th January 2015

Venue: Meeting room no. 2, 19th floor, REA, 16 Place Rogier - 1210 Brussels

Hour Item Time Presenter

10:00 Opening of the review meeting 5’ Stefano D’Orilia (REA)

10:05 Overall project presentation 15’ J. Peter Burgess (PRIO)

10:20 Overview of the progress 15’ J. Peter Burgess (PRIO)

10:35 WP2 presentation 20’ J. Peter Burgess (PRIO)

10:55 WP3 presentation 20’ Reinhard Kreissl (IRKS

Research)

11:15 Coffee Break 20’

11:35 WP4 presentation 20’ Didier Bigo (KCL)

11:55 WP5 presentation 20’ Nina Boy (PRIO)

12:15 WP6 presentation (including Ethics

issues)

20’ Kristoffer Lidén (PRIO)

12:35 WP8 presentation 20’ Christof Roos, & Ólöf G.

Söebech (VUB)

12:55 Questions and answers 5’

13:00 Lunch 60’

14:00 WP9 presentation (communication) 20’ Sergio Carrera & Miriam

Mir (CEPS)

14:20 WP1: management activities 20’ Anne Duquenne (PRIO)

14:40 Financial overview of the reporting

period

20’ Anne Duquenne (PRIO)

15:00 Overview of the next reporting period 20’ PRIO

15:20 Internal discussion PO/reviewers 10’ Stefano D’Orilia /

reviewers

15:30 Feedback of preliminary review

conclusions from the reviewers

10’ Reviewers

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

16

15:40 Defining list of actions and deadlines 10’ Stefano D’Orilia /

Consortium

15:50 Wrap-up of review meeting 10’

16:00 End of the meeting

Attendees

REA Project Officer Stefano D’Orilia

Reviewers Silvia Ciotti

Roger Warwick

Coordinator Anne Duquenne, Peter Burgess

WP leaders

Reinhard Kreissl (WP3), Didier Bigo,

Médéric Martin-Mazé (WP4), Nina Boy

(WP5), Kristoffer Lidén (WP6) Christof

Roos, Ólöf G. Söebech (WP7&8),

Sergio Carrera, Miriam Mir (WP9)

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

17

Annex 2: Presentations at the Review Meeting

Virtual centre of excellence for research support and

coordination on societal security

1st Periodic Review

28 January 2015, Brussels, REA

Agenda

• Overall project presentation

• Overview of progress

• Workpackage summaries (WP2-WP8)

• Lunch

• Workpackage summaries II (WP9, WP1)

• Financial reporting

• Overview of next reporting period

SOURCE Review Meeting 1, 28 January 2015

Project presentation

J. Peter Burgess – PRIO

• Instrument: Network of excellence

• Call: SEC-2012.7.4-2

• Theme: Networking of researchers for a high level multi-

organisational and cross-border collaboration

• Budget: 5 million euros

• Project start: 1 January 2014

• Duration: 5 years

• Partners: 12


Basic premises

• Rethinking security for a new era

• Understanding the diversity of experiences of security

• Understanding new forms of social life

• Identifying actors

• Charting politics

• Identifying institutions

• Clarifying sectors

• Finding possibilities


Basic research components

• Empirical understanding of societal security (WP3)

• Security actors (WP4)

• Financial security (WP5)

• Ethics and value security (WP6)


Basic activities

• Network-building

• Education

• Training

• Documentation

• Media monitoring

• Dissemination


In the SOURCE network we understand ‘societal

security’ as:

• the ability of society to sustain its primary functions and to

preserve its essential character under changing

conditions and possible or actual threats (free after Buzan

et al. 1998: 119-123).


Components of the network

• Scholarly researchers

• Security industry

• Policy makers

• Civil society

• End-users


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

18

Overall progress

• Project organisation: People, principles, ideas

• Research infrastructure: Tools, technologies, procedures

• Stock-taking of the field: research, industry, policy

• Empirical starting points: Survey and focus groups

• Web page population: Form and content


Workpackage summaries

• WP2 Network-building, coordination, integration

• WP3 Societal security survey

• WP4 Security professions and institutions

• WP5 Societal security of financial systems

• WP6 Ethics, law and human rights

• WP7 Education and training

• WP8 Observatory and documentation hub

• WP9 Communication, dissemination and knowledge-

sharing


Workpackage highlights (1/2)

• WP2 (Network-building): Creation of information sharing

infrastructure.

• WP3 (Survey): New insights into societal security in Europe

• WP4 (Security professionals): Mapping principles and

methodology

• WP5: (Financial security): Establishment of research

problematic


Workpackage highlights (2/2)

• WP6 (Ethics): Creation of Ethics help desk

• WP7 (Education & training): Start-up period 2

• WP8 (Observatory): Identified tools and methods

• WP9 (Communication): Website, Newsletter and Journal


Deliverables (1/2)

• D1.1 Inception report (PRIO – planned M7, delivered M4)

• D2.1 Network Coordination Plan (PRIO – planned M4,

delivered M5)

• D2.2 Workshop Coordination Plan (CEPS – planned M4,

delivered M5)

• D2.3 Sector Survey Meeting and Report (FhG – planned

M7, delivered M8)

• D2.4 Overview and analysis of existing modes of

exchange between relevant sectors (FhG – planned M9,

delivered M12)


Deliverables (2/2)

• D3.1 Methodology workshop and review of available

empirical sources (IRKS-Research – M4, delivered M6)

• D3.2 Survey handbook and complementary research

strategy (IRKS-Research – planned M11, delivered M12)

• D4.1 Report on theory and methodology for mapping of

societal security networks (KCL – M9)

• D4.4 Approval of national data protection authorities (KCL

– M9)

• D9.8 Webpage construction/management & Journalism

and Social Media (CEPS – M3)

• D9.3 Journal: Technology, Security & Society (PRIO – 12)


WP2: Network-building, coordination and

integration

J. Peter Burgess – PRIO

• Lead beneficiary: PRIO

• SOURCE beneficiaries: FOI, CIES, FhG, TNO, CEPS,

VUB, IRKS Research, KCL, EOS, TEC

• Deliverables submitted: D2.1, D2.2, D2.3, D2.4


WP2: Objectives and methods

• - presentation of WP

• - Objectives of WP

• - relation to other WPs

• - Presentation of the Primary Network


WP2: Primary Network

• The network represents actors involved with security in

different ways and is thus divided in five sectors:

1. Academia

2. security industry

3. policy makers

4. civil society

5. end-users

Now 85 members and still expanding


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

19

WP2: Results and outcomes

• summary of progress towards objectives and details for

each task

• Significant results

• Deviations from annex I and impact on other tasks and

planning

• If failure to achieve critical objectives explain the reasons

• Expected impact: scientific, technological, economic,

competitive and social (where relevant)


WP2: Deliverables & Milestones

• 4 deliverables submitted during the first reporting period:

• D2.1 Network Coordination Plan (PRIO – planned M4, delivered M5)

• D2.2 Workshop Coordination Plan (CEPS – planned M4, delivered M5)

• D2.3 Sector Survey Meeting and Report (FhG – planned M7, delivered M8)

• D2.4 Overview and analysis of existing modes of exchange between relevant sectors (FhG – planned M9, delivered M10)

• 2 milestones were reached during the first reporting period:

• MS1 Networking plan and work plans are established and evaluated (PRIO – M4)

• MS2 Sector Survey completed (IRKS Research – M8)


WP2: Upcoming activities

• 2 deliverables to be submitted in the coming period:

• D2.5 Report on principles, methods and tools for

implementing interfaces (FhG – planned M12, to be

delivered in M14)

• D2.7 Guidebook for Knowledge Sharing on Societal

Security (FOI – M22)


WP3 Societal security survey

Reinhard Kreissl – IRKS Research

• Lead beneficiary: IRKS Research

• SOURCE beneficiaries: PRIO, FOI, CIES, TNO, CEPS,

KCL, EOS, TEC

• Deliverables submitted: D3.1 and D3.2



• Objective: create a European-wide survey on societal

security over a period of five years to integrate existing

knowledge on public perceptions of societal security

across sectors.

• Fill existing gaps in the existing knowledge

• Method: multi-dimensional and multi-method-approach,

combining qualitative and quantitative data and secondary

analysis of existing surveys (e.g. EB, ESS)




• Survey Handbook and complimentary research

design available (resulting from methodology

workshop)

• Contacts for entry-points for empirical research

(survey, interviews) established.

• Master-draft for online quantitative survey finished

(translations in progress) / pre-test conducted

• Interview guidelines for different types of

qualitative expert interviews drafted



• D3.1 Methodology workshop and review of available empirical sources (IRKS-Research – planned M4, delivered M6).

• D3.2 Survey handbook and complementary research strategy (IRKS-Research – planned M11, delivered M12).

•

• Pending:

• D3.9 Approval of national data protection authorities (IRKS Research – M8 – pending)

• D3.3) Survey data base (IRKS Research – M12 –pending)



• (1) Survey on Societal Security

• The online survey no1 is conducted in 9 countries • (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK)

• Available in 7 languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Dutch,

Norwegian, Swedish)

• The online survey will be consistently accessible via a standard link

• The survey consists of 10 question-batteries to be filled in in under 15

minutes.

• A theory-driven, multi-layered dissemination strategy is used:• All partners will make available their Mailing-lists, Newsletters, Social Media etc.

• NGOs (e.g. Statewatch as well as European Neighbourhood Watch Assn.)

• Approaching defined populations using a variety of media (e.g. International

Network of Street Papers)



• Survey on Societal Security (screenshot/examples):

• Starting page:

• Consent form /Disclaimer:

• Question



• (2) Interviews with key informants

• Interviews with key informants are planned in 8 countries:• (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,

UK)

• The interviews will be designed as narrative interviews and will be based on an common interview guideline.

• Envisaged are interviews with individuals exposed to surveillance e.g. on the basis of their profession (like journalists), their civic engagement (like political activists pro and con surveillance); individuals exposed to risks of social, cultural and economic marginalisation (like members of ethnic minorities); and other stakeholders.

•


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

20

WP3: Upcoming events


Relative frequencies of terms in Google news search from 2004-2014


• (3) Media Analysis

• ####

• Interviews with key informants are planned in 8 countries:• (Austria, Belgium, # Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK)

• The interviews will be based on an common interview

guideline that allows for discussion#.

• Envisaged are interviews with individuals exposed to surveillance e.g. on the

basis of their profession (like journalists), their civic engagement (like political

activists pro and con surveillance); individuals exposed to risks of social,

cultural and economic marginalisation (like members of ethnic minorities);

and other stakeholders.


WP3: Dissemination activities


• Advertising the Survey = targeted dissemination

of the SOURCE approach

• National public radio / newspaper / TV-stations

presentations of the SOURCE approach in

Austria



• D3.4 Annual societal security report 1 (IRKS Research –

M12 – delayed to M15)

• D3.5 Annual societal security report 2 (IRKS Research –

M24)


WP4 Security professions and institutions

analysis

Didier Bigo – KCL

• Lead beneficiary: KCL

• SOURCE beneficiaries: PRIO, FOI, FhG, CEPS, VUB,

EOS, TEC




• Presentation of WP4: institutions and professions of

security in Europe

• Objectives of WP: Generate and update a knowledge

base and maps of professions and institutions of societal

security in Europe

• Sub-objective 1: methodological principles

• Sub-objective 2: map professional and institutional networks

• Sub-objective 3: critical reflection on the transformation of security



• Summary of progress : activities in 2014

• Recruitment of Research Associate

• State of the art study on societal security in Europe

• Comparative study of mapping methods in social science

• Drafting of Deliverable D4.1 on mapping methods

• Organisation of a 2-days workshop in November

• Start of active research phase in collaboration with WP4 SOURCE

partners



• Summary of progress


• Debates on societal security

1. Societal resilience

2. Societal acceptance

3. Societal protection



• Summary of progress


• Debates on societal security

• Research process

1. Database

2. Timeline

3. Mapping




• D4.1 Report on theory and methodology for mapping of

societal security networks (KCL – M9)

• D4.4 Approval of national data protection authorities (KCL

– M9)


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

21


• Construction of the database

• Timeline

• Visualisations



• 2 deliverables to be submitted in the last period:

• D4.3 Report on institutional transformation and impact

(KCL – M50)

• D4.2 Analytic report and visualisation on societal security

networks in Europe (KCL – M58)


WP5 Societal security of financial systems

Nina Boy – PRIO


• SOURCE beneficiaries: FOI, VUB, IRKS Research, TEC

+ CIES

• Deliverables submitted: none, pending D5.1



• Clarify conceptual and empirical points of contact

between the financial system and societal security

• Liberal security problematic of securing open systems of

circulation

• Methods: Desktop analysis, empirical data collection

(interviews for D5.2 or 3)



Objectives:

D5.1: Compare risk methodologies and concepts of value

in finance and security

D5.2: Mapping of global financial flows + survey of different

mechanisms and factors that secure financial circulation

D5.3: Explore impact of financial crisis on societal security

empirically and conceptually



• Comprehensive and detailed work plan for three WP5

deliverables + optimisation of competences

• Follow-up Skype meetings with partners and agreement

of subtasks and deadlines

• Research for D5.1: Risk methodologies; Securitisation of

finance/ Financialisation of security

• No deliverables were submitted in the first period



• EWIS workshop ‘Security and Finance’, Gediz University, Izmir, Turkey, 21-24 May 2014 -) Conceptual groundwork for outline and work plan; Promotion of research agenda to international audience

• Clear distribution of work and timely reorganisation where necessary

• Synergies with EISA, Overheating Project (University of Oslo), Open Society Foundation

• Publication and presentations


WP5: Results and outcomesProject-related publications:

Boy, Nina (2014) The Back-Story of the Risk-Free Asset: How Government Debt Became 'Safe'' in Charles Goodhart, Daniela Gabor, Ismail Ertuerk and Jakob Vestergaard (eds) Central Banking at a Crossroads. London: Anthem Press.

Project-related presentations:

Boy, Nina, ‘Mapping finance-security relations’, SOURCE workshop Mapping the Professionals of ‘Societal Security’ in Europe’, Kings College London, UK, 17-18 November 2014

Boy, Nina, ‘The backstory of the risk-free asset: how government debt became safe’, Workshop on Money, Sovereignty and Representation, Chawton House Library, UK, 18-19 September 2014

Boy, Nina, ‘The backstory of the risk-free asset: How government debt became "safe", Main Speaker at ‘Overheating’ Seminar series The Three Crises of Globalisation: Economic, Environmental, Cultural, University of Oslo, 13 October 2014

Boy, Nina, ‘Financial security’, Workshop Rethinking Money, Debt and Finance after the Crisis, University of Sydney, 11-13 August 2014

Boy, Nina, ‘Introduction to SOURCE: Finance and security’ and ‘The performativity of money‘ at Workshop Security and Finance: Performativity, Narrativity, Affect, 2nd European Workshops in International Studies (EWIS) at Gediz University, Izmir, Turkey, 21-24 May 2014.


WP5: Expected impact

• Scientific impact: Advancement and promotion of

interdisciplinary finance-security research agenda


WP5: Relation to other WPs

• Participation in WP4 workshop Mapping the

professionals of ‘societal security’ in Europe at Kings

College London, 16-17 November 2014

Presentation: ‘Mapping finance-security relations’; Follow

project discussions on concept of societal security; Promote

inter-WP dialogue

• Conceptual links between finance and society:

Society as reciprocal relations of debt (Mauss 1925)

Securing societies: State as safe asset; Insurance

Financialisation/ Securitisation


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

22



• D5.1 Report on the theory of risk as a societal security

instrument (PRIO – M12 – delayed to M14)

• D5.2 Report on the role of financial regulation in the

provision of security (PRIO – M18)

• D5.3 Analytic report on the relation between security

investment and societal security (PRIO – M24)

+ Organisation of Conference/ Workshop on Finance-

Security relations (Autumn 2015)


WP5: Deviations from annex I

• Reallocation of partner contribution and inclusion of new

partner (CIES)

• Changes in deadlines of deliverables D5.1 and D5.2


WP6: Ethics, law and human rights

Kristoffer Lidén – PRIO


• SOURCE beneficiaries: FOI, CIES, TNO, CEPS, VUB,

IRKS Research, KCL, EOS

• Deliverables submitted: none planned



• Objective: providing a foundation for research on the

dependencies between societal security and ethical

values. Concentrating on:

• Threat analysis and the notion of societal security

• The deployment of biometric technologies

• Strategies for dealing with violent extremism

• Practices of security preparedness

• Methods: literature review, document analysis and follow-

up interviews.

• Relates to WPs 2-5, 8-9.



• Task 6.1: the function of values in notions of societal security, as expressed in threat analyses.• Security perceptions

• Security practices

• Societal reaction to security measures

• Security narratives in public debate

• Partners: CIES, CEPS, IRKS, KCL

• 2 deliverables in the coming period:• D6.1 Report on human values in threat analysis (PRIO – M20)

• D6.5 Approval national data protection authorities for T6.1 (PRIO –M15)

• Workshop


WP6: Ethics helpdesk

• Consultations on issues related to research ethics

• Approvals

• Data protection and privacy

• Consent and copyrights

• Dual use

• Annual meetings with WP leaders and Ethics advisory

board

• Intranet page


WP8: Observatory and documentation

hub

Christof Roos and Ólöf Söebech – VUB

• Lead beneficiary: VUB

• SOURCE beneficiaries: PRIO, CIES, FhG, TNO, CEPS,

VUB, IRKS Research, KCL, EOS, TEC, Sciences Po

• Deliverables submitted: none planned



• The primary objective of the work package is to gather

and organize information and research of relevance to

research and development on societal security, its

conceptualization and implementation

• To gain overview of the field – scholarly articles, policy

• To track changes – legal, technological

• To map current dialogues- media, debates


WP8: Relation to other WPs

• The observatory and documentation hub provides space

to collect and present output of all work packages in one

place

• It becomes a tool for researchers as well as other

stakeholders

• The information collected and analysed by the various

tasks also feed into research of other WPs (e.g. media

watch and database)

• Will develop over time to increase usefulness and

connectivity


T8.1 & T8.2: Legal and Technological

Trends

• Task leaders CEPS and Fraunhofer

• Developing “technological cards” and “legal cards”

• Scan the fields respectively for overview

• Selection of technologies and legal trends to give focus

• Add “fact sheets” to database, and create blogs when

relevant

• Collaboration for related topics

• Similar look and feel

• First cards ready March/April 2015


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

23

T8.5 Scientometrics Maps

• Task leader Sciences Po (Delivery M32)

• Have created a methodology and protocol for extracting

and harvesting data

• Baseline research conduced on preparing the digital tools

• Next step: collect inputs from the security experts present

in the project


T8.3, 8.4 & 8.6 Index, Media Watch and

Database• Task leaders VUB

• 3 tasks interlinked

• First steps conducted

• Scanning of existing tools and similar online observatories

• User analysis

• Content analysis

• Collection of documents and keywords from partners

• Developed a system for organising /cataloguing

• Identifying and selecting experts for technical implementation

(outsourcing contract)


Methodology

• 3 layered filtering

• Domain (inspired by D3.1) - 8

• Key Concepts - 66

• Topics - 120

• Free search options

• Continuous refinement of the 3 layers (terminology)

• Smart system

• Once enough data, will suggest new terminology and additions


T8.4 Media Watch filters


T8.4 Media Watch smarter filters


8.4 Media Watch

•Crawling since 15 January 2015

•Approx 350 Media Sources

•Total of over 9500 articles filtered in

the system

• Out of around 87.000 articles crawled




D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

24

WP8: Database

• Following the launch and tweaking of Media watch, we

will start building the database

• Use same system of filtering and visualising

• Manual input based on articles collected, suggestions

from partners – partner input

• Scholarly articles, scientific documents, policy documents

(Int., EU., Nat.), SOURCE project documents,


WP8: Next steps

• Media watch testing and tweaking

• Media watch additional visualisation graphics

• Legal and technological trends first test cards

• Expert dialogues between Sciences Po and experts

(preparation for scientometrics maps)

• Construction of database

• Database input


WP9: Communication, dissemination and

knowledge-sharing

Sergio Carrera – CEPS

• Lead beneficiary: CEPS

• SOURCE beneficiaries: all




• - Presentation of WP• It carries out the dissemination and communication of the project outcomes

• Duration: All the course of the project and beyond

• All partners involved – Strong participation of PRIO, VUB, Sciences Po & FhG

• - Objectives of WP• Main objective: Coordinate the internal and external dissemination of

information collected or generated by the project.

• Form and maintain a policy forum on issues related to societal security including a policy-oriented newsletter

• Create and maintain a high-level scholarly journal on societal security in Europe; and

• Carry out continuous foresighting activities on issues related to societal security.

• - Relation to other WPs• Interconnection with all WPs

• Specially with WP2, WP7 & WP8


WP9: Results and key outcomes

• Key results achieved during the 1st reporting period

• Establishment and functioning of project’s Website

• Creation of the Intranet side

• Social Media tools

• Quarterly Societal Security Newsletter

• Elaboration of the Journal on Security, Society and Technology



Social Media Tools

• Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/pages/Source-Societal-Security-Network/1458047431122893

• Twitter → https://twitter.com/source_eu → @source_eu

• LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=7455200



• Quarterly Societal Security Newsletter• Envisaged every 3 months / Electronically

• Contributions from all the partners – supervision by the

Coordinators

• Option to Unsubscribe at any time

• Subscription via website

• Sent to the Primary Network Members and relevant contacts from

partners

• Displays:

• Articles / Opinions / Commentaries/ Publications/ Events

• Information on Upcoming publications and events

• Relevant News on the project (i.e. Upcoming Observatory, Journal)



• Quarterly Societal Security Newsletter



• Journal on Security, Society and Technology• Carried out by PRIO

• The Journal will be made available electronically and for free

• A link to the Journal will be created in the project’s webpage

• Security, Society and Technology (SST) Journal will be a hybrid

scientific/trade/policy journal

• It will provide information, documentation‚ updates and reviews of

activities and issues of relevance to societal security

• Contributors → address political, ethical and societal issues raised

by existing and emerging security technologies and solutions

developed in response to contemporary security challenges

• Available → First quarter of 2016


WP9: Website

• Key dissemination tool during first year and keep on improving

till the end of the project and beyond

• First-stop source of information on societal security for the

public sphere

• It provides a window to all the Publications, information on

Events, structure and objectives of the project, News → Links

to Surveys, Newsletter, Journal and Observatory

• Clear and simple structure

• Easy to see and access the latest information on Homepage

• Latest additions: Blogs and Video interviews!!

www.societalsecurity.net


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

25

WP9: Website

• Statistics

http://www.google.com/analytics


WP9: Intranet side

• Accessible for the partners with a Username and

Password

• Virtual platform where all the partners can:

• Interact → Use Blogs

• Find internal documents (administrative, financial as well as draft

deliverables) → Depository

• See the calendar of events and internal dates

• Check relevant documentation, exchange/share interesting News

internally in the network and;

• Important Coordination Tool → It offers also the possibility to assign

Tasks to the different partners.

http://intranet.sourcenetwork.eu/home


WP9: Deliverables


• D9.3 Journal: Technology, Security & Society (PRIO: M12)

• D9.8 Webpage construction/ management & Journalism

and Social Media (CEPS: M3)

• Good development during the first 12 months

• All the foreseen deliverables have been submitted

• Minor delays → not big impact on the other tasks.

• Newsletter slight delay in order to settle first issue.

• Organisation of policy meetings and the publication of policy briefs

→ which are due to the changes in the European institutions.


WP9: Additional dissemination activities

• Meeting with former Commissionner for Justice, Mrs.

Viviane Reding (WP2) → Big visibility of the project in

front an audience with policy makers

• Project Flyer → manageable dissemination tool

• Video Interviews → visual tool to present the project and

its main objectives and work



• 3 deliverables in the coming period:

• D9.15 University students societal security scenarios (VUB – M15)

• D9.14 Video interview film with stakeholders (VUB – M20)

• D9.9 Societal security symposium (PRIO – M21)


WP1: Project management

Anne Duquenne – PRIO


• SOURCE beneficiaries involved: all

• Deliverables submitted: D1.1

• J. Peter Burgess: Project Leader

• Anne Duquenne: project manager

• Lars Even Andersen: Financial manager


Roles

• Day-to-day management: PRIO

Intermediary role between all parties and REA

Communication within consortium and with WP leaders

• Work Package Leaders:

• Lead and responsible for coordination of each WP: planning the

workload, supervising the progress of activities, production of

deliverables, respecting the project schedules in WPs.

• Steering Committee = Supervisory body

• Monthly meetings with the WP leaders (10 meetings in 2014)

• General Assembly = ultimate decision-making body

• One meeting per year with all beneficiaries


Boards and Network

• Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) • Anke van Gorp, Utrecht University

• Vassiliki Petoussi, University of Crete

• User Advisory Group (UAG)• Alfonso del Alamo Giménez, Security and Emergencies in Madrid

• Gerald Murray, Police Service of Northern Ireland

• Chaim Rafalowski, Magen David Adom Israël

• Bengt Sundelius, Swedish Civil Contingency Agency

• Primary Network

• 80+ members


To avoid delays: Deliverables Internal

Procedure• 1. A draft deliverable is sent to the Coordinator and

reviewer and circulated among all partners (1 month

before official deadline)

• 2. Coordinator and reviewer provide feedback (10 days)

• 3. WP partners incorporate the necessary changes and

comments (2 weeks)

• 4. Final deliverable is sent to Coordinator and reviewer

who confirms the completion of the deliverable (1 week

before official deadline)

• 5. Coordinator makes necessary formatting and submits

the deliverable to the European Commission


Changes in consortium

• First amendment: 25 February 2014

• partial transfer of rights and obligations of the partner

IRKS to IRKS Research GesmbH

• Management of the former partner budget


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

26

Financial overview of reporting period

• PM distribution portion completed

• Overal budget portion completed

• Main costs



Original total PRIO FOI CIES FHG TNO CEPS VUB IRKS KCL EOS TEC S Po

WP1 (MGT) 13,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 24

WP2 (OTH) 16,75 5,25 3,25 12,25 6,25 4,25 1,25 6,75 3,50 4,25 8,75 72,5

WP3 (RTD) 1,50 3,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 12,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 25,5

WP4 (RTD) 1,50 3,50 1,50 1,00 2,00 22,00 1,00 2,00 34,5

WP5 (RTD) 16,00 4,50 2,00 2,00 2,50 27

WP6 (RTD) 20,50 1,00 6,00 0,50 2,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,50 37,5

WP7 (OTH) 8,00 6,00 2,00 10,25 6,00 2,00 3,00 37,25

WP8 (RTD) 2,00 2,50 4,50 3,00 3,25 11,50 0,50 4,00 0,50 2,00 3,50 37,25

WP9 (OTH) 9,00 2,00 2,00 5,00 2,00 16,00 8,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 17,50 70,5

88,25 26,25 15,75 24,25 17,75 28,5 39 31,25 36,5 14,25 22,25 22 366

Portion completed PRIO FOI CIES FHG TNO CEPS VUB IRKS KCL EOS TEC S Po

WP1 (MGT) 28 % 3 % 24 % 25 % 33 % 0 % 28 % 15 % 7 % 25 % 30 % 0 % 23 %

WP2 (OTH) 30 % 1 % 38 % 47 % 24 % 57 % 91 % 21 % 57 % 70 % 22 % 35 %

WP3 (RTD) 16 % 8 % 0 % 47 % 21 % 0 % 17 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16 %

WP4 (RTD) 0 % 0 % 11 % 88 % 8 % 33 % 24 % 0 % 25 %

WP5 (RTD) 38 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14 % 24 %

WP6 (RTD) 5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 %

WP7 (OTH) 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

WP8 (RTD) 0 % 0 % 2 % 0 % 21 % 22 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 10 %

WP9 (OTH) 3 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 4 % 36 % 19 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 10 % 0 % 12 %

18 % 1 % 10 % 26 % 19 % 35 % 15 % 12 % 25 % 30 % 13 % 0 % 17 %

Period 1 PRIO FOI CIES FHG TNO CEPS VUB IRKS KCL EOS TEC S Po

WP1 (MGT) 3,63 0,03 0,24 0,25 0,33 0,28 0,15 0,07 0,25 0,30 0,00 5,53

WP2 (OTH) 5,05 0,07 1,22 5,74 1,53 2,43 1,14 1,45 2,00 2,99 1,91 25,53

WP3 (RTD) 0,24 0,23 1,41 0,21 2,03 4,12

WP4 (RTD) 0,17 0,88 0,15 7,16 0,24 8,6

WP5 (RTD) 6,14 0,01 0,07 0,36 6,58

WP6 (RTD) 0,94 0,94

WP7 (OTH) 0

WP8 (RTD) 0,10 0,69 2,57 0,20 0,00 3,56

WP9 (OTH) 0,26 0,07 0,08 5,75 1,55 0,75 0,20 0,00 8,66

16,26 0,34 1,53 6,33 3,35 9,96 5,69 3,63 9,23 4,23 2,97 0 63,52

• FOI and Sciences Po not much involved in RP1



• VUB has received 1.5PM extra for working in the network

coordination (WP2) + removed from WP5

• CIES invited to join WP5



Original Budget

RTD MGT OTH Total

(A) (B) (C) (A+B+C)

PRIO 534 305,00 171 602,00 691 747,70 1 397 654,70 1 264 078,45

FOI 225 500,00 20 500,00 253 500,00 499 500,00 443 125,00

CIES 135 132,00 13 416,00 94 434,00 242 982,00 209 199,00

Fraunhofer 70 320,00 10 920,00 213 070,00 294 310,00 276 730,00

TNO 115 250,00 16 700,00 185 075,00 317 025,00 288 212,50

CEPS 117 659,20 18 199,20 391 028,80 526 887,20 497 472,40

VUB 386 560,00 21 800,00 425 680,00 834 040,00 737 400,00

IRKS 275 140,00 18 340,00 210 000,00 503 480,00 434 695,00

KCL 308 576,00 8 419,20 69 305,60 386 300,80 309 156,80

EOS 47 059,20 10 924,80 118 304,40 176 288,40 164 523,60

TECNALIA 69 585,00 9 458,00 143 172,50 222 215,50 204 819,25

Sciences Po 29 401,60 7 257,60 138 867,20 175 526,40 168 176,00

Total 2 314 488,00 327 536,80 2 934 185,20 5 576 210,00 4 997 588,00

Participant EU contribution

Period 1 Budget

RTD MGT OTH Total

(A) (B) (C) (A+B+C)

PRIO 89 081,14 43 153,71 60 954,53 193 189,38 170 919,10

FOI 4 385,99 2 493,48 6 879,47 5 782,97

CIES 983,76 3 834,13 22 377,41 27 195,30 26 949,36

Fraunhofer 3 801,92 2 751,13 65 144,49 71 697,54 70 747,06

TNO 15 821,90 3 679,71 24 136,15 43 637,76 39 682,29

CEPS 28 950,29 87 672,50 116 622,79 109 385,22

VUB 58 080,61 3 955,58 44 522,46 106 558,65 92 038,50

IRKS 21 014,82 3 663,26 19 626,59 44 304,67 39 050,97

KCL 55 541,66 760,93 11 629,60 67 932,19 54 046,78

EOS 1 870,14 1 170,83 23 198,74 26 239,71 25 772,18

TECNALIA 7 236,54 4 473,09 19 357,79 31 067,42 29 258,29

Sciences Po 245,33 494,48 739,81 678,48

Total 287 014,10 70 430,33 378 620,26 736 064,69 664 311,17



Portion of Budget

RTD MGT OTH Total

(A) (B) (C) (A+B+C)

PRIO 17 % 25 % 9 % 14 % 14 %

FOI 2 % 12 % 0 % 1 % 1 %

CIES 1 % 29 % 24 % 11 % 13 %

Fraunhofer 5 % 25 % 31 % 24 % 26 %

TNO 14 % 22 % 13 % 14 % 14 %

CEPS 25 % 0 % 22 % 22 % 22 %

VUB 15 % 18 % 10 % 13 % 12 %

IRKS 8 % 20 % 9 % 9 % 9 %

KCL 18 % 9 % 17 % 18 % 17 %

EOS 4 % 11 % 20 % 15 % 16 %

TECNALIA 10 % 47 % 14 % 14 % 14 %

Sciences Po 1 % 7 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Total 12 % 22 % 13 % 13 % 13 %


Main costs

• Personnel costs

• Meetings & Travels (KOM; WP2 meetings; WP4 meeting)

• Primary Network Fund (PRIO/VUB): Sector Survey

• Consortium networking budget: CEPS event with

Commissioner

• Mediawatch


Overview of the next reporting period


• Originally 11 deliverables in the second period, now 16.

• WP7 will start

• WP5 will finish

M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

PRIO 5.1 2.6, 6.5 1.2 5.2, 6.1 9.9 5.3, 1.5, 2.6

FOI 2.7

FhG 2.5

CEPS 9.2

VUB 9.15 9.14

IRKS 3.3, 3.9 3.4 3.5

YEAR 2: 2015

Events & Meetings in 2015

• WP2 Assessment workshop number 1 & 2 (First and last

quarter) – Primary Network involvement

• Mid-term conference and General Assembly (First

quarter) – consortium meeting

• European Symposium (Fourth Quarter) – large

dissemination event

• Policy Seminar

• WP6 workshop

• WP5 workshop


D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

27

Upcoming deliverables • D1.2 Mid-term report I (PRIO – M19) + D1.5 Ethics report 1 (PRIO – M24)

• D3.3 Survey data base (IRKS Research – M12)

• D3.4 Annual societal security report 1 (IRKS Research – M12)

• D3.5 Annual societal security report 2 (IRKS Research – M24)

• D2.5 Report on principles, methods and tools for implementing interfaces (FhG –M13/12)

• D2.7 Guidebook for Knowledge Sharing on Societal Security (FOI – M22)

• D5.1 Report on the theory of risk as a societal security instrument (PRIO – M14/12)

• D5.2 Report on the role of financial regulation in the provision of security (PRIO –M20/originally 18)

• D5.3 Analytic report on the relation between security investment and societal security (PRIO – M24)

• D6.1 Report on human values in threat analysis (PRIO – M20)

• D9.9 Societal security symposium (PRIO – M21)

• D9.14 Video interview film with stakeholders (VUB – M20)

• D9.15 University students societal security scenarios (VUB – M15)


THANK YOU


Annex 3: Agenda of the first midterm meeting

SOURCE ANNUAL CONSORTIUM MEETING 28 April 2015, Brussels

10:00 – 10:15 Opening of the meeting

Welcome & tour de table

10:15 – 11:30

Comments by

Ana María Padilla

Beltrán

The first year

Primary Network (PRIO, FhG)

Societal Security Survey (IRKS/VICESSE)

Security Profession & Institutions (KCL)

Risk in the fields of finance and security (PRIO)

Mediawatch & university students scenarios (VUB)

Coffee break

12:00 – 13:00

Comments by

Bengt Sundelius

The coming dissemination activities

Primary Network Assessment workshop (PRIO)

Database & interviews with stakeholders (VUB)

Societal Security Symposium (PRIO)

Journal (PRIO)

Web cartography (Sciences Po)

Technology cards (FhG, CEPS, VUB)

Lunch

14:00 – 15:00

Comments by

Anke Van Gorp

The coming research activities

Guidebook for knowledge sharing on Societal Security (FOI)

Generating data on societal security: agencies and controversies (KCL)

Financial stability, financial crisis and societal security (PRIO)

Human Values in threat analysis (PRIO)

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

28

15:00 – 15:40

Board members

retreat to discuss

in separate room

Best practices

How to deal with ethical issues (PRIO)

How to communicate about the project (CEPS)

How to get funding for organising events (PRIO)

How to submit deliverables (PRIO)

Coffee Break

16:00 – 17:00 Feedback from the Boards & General Assembly

User Advisory Group comments

Ethics Advisory Board comments

General Assembly (Separate agenda to follow)

17:00 – 17:15 Way forward and closure

Closure of the meeting and next steps

VENUE: CEPS

1 Place du Congres, 1000 Brussels

Working Party Room (3rd Floor)

How to get there: http://www.ceps.eu/content/contact-information-page

Participants:

1. PRIO

J. Peter Burgess

Anne Duquenne

Nina Boy

Kristoffer Lidén

2. FOI Anders Eriksson

3. CIES Sadhbh McCarthy

4. FHG Sonja Grigoleit

5. TNO Miriam Huis in ‘t Veld

6. CEPS Nicholas Hernanz

http://www.ceps.eu/content/contact-information-page

http://www.ceps.eu/content/contact-information-page

D1.2 – FP7 – 313288

29

Miriam Mir

7. VUB

Christof Roos

Olof Soebech

8. VICESSE Reinhard Kreissl

9. KCL Médéric Martin-Mazé

10. EOS Katsiaryna Kliuyeva

11. Tecnalia

F. Javier Herrera

Juan Garcia

12. Sciences PO Audrey Baneyx

Board members: User Advisory Group

Advisor of the General Directorate Civil Protection of Madrid City Council

Ana María Padilla Beltrán

User Advisory Group

Director General of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)

Bengt Sundelius

Ethics Advisory Board Chair

Utrecht University of Applied Sciences

Anke Van Gorp

virtual centre of excellence for research support … · d1.2 mid-term report i abstract: the...

Documents