Joint Programming Initiative on
Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe
Rome, October 19th, 2012
Governing Board meeting
Draft minute
Participants at JPI meeting :
Cyprus, Research Promotion Foundation, Leonidas Antoniou, Eleana Gabriel; Denmark, University of Copenhagen, The Danish Agency for
Science and Technology, Ellen Braae, Ulla Hoberg Joergensen; France, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, Ministère de
l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Jacques Dubucs, Sylvie Max- Collinart, Vincent Israel-Jost; Italy, Ministry of Cultural Heritage
and Activities, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Antonia P. Recchia, Maria Uccellatore, Cristina Sabbioni, Patrizia Bianconi, Rosa
Caffo, Stefania Celentino, Valentina Di Lonardo, Laura Tinelli; Ireland, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Heritage Council of
Ireland, Rónán Whelan, Eimear O’Connell; Lithuania, Directorate of the State Cultural Reserve of Vilnius Castles, Audronė Kasperavičienė;
The Netherlands, The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Cultural Heritage Agency, Annemarie Bos, Jos Bazelmans; Norway,
The Research Council of Norway, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, Eli Ragna Taerum, May Britt Habjorg; Poland, Ministry of Science
and Education, Academy of Fine Arts, Jacek Gierlinski, Iwona Szmelter; Romania, National Authority for Scientific Research, Oana Costea;
Slovenia, Ministry of Culture of Republic of Slovenia, Marija Brus; Slovakia, Ministry of Education Science, Research and Sport, Matej Bel
University, Lubika Pitlova, Ivan Murin; Spain, Ministry Economy and Competitiveness, Emilio Cano; United Kingdom, The Arts and
Humanities Research Council, Mark Llewellyn, Gail Lambourne, Lyndsey Stoakes.
European Commission: Luisa Prista, Michel Chapuis, Adèle Lydon, Astrid Brandt-Grau, Giulio Pattanaro;
Agenda:
Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda, Antonia Pasqua Recchia - JPICH Coordinator
Approval of the minute of the JPI Governing Board Meeting held on the 23 of March 2012, Antonia Pasqua Recchia - JPICH Coordinator
JPICH First pilot call: MoU, Guidelines for applicants, roadmap, Cristina Sabbioni, Patrizia Bianconi - JPICH Coordination
Discussion, all Participants
Update on ERA-NET Plus call, European Commission
ERA-NET Plus: proposal preparation and roadmap, Cristina Sabbioni, Patrizia Bianconi - JPI CH Coordination
Discussion, all Participants
Update on JHEP-Joint Heritage European Programme implementation and activities: WP2 Leader (15 min)
13,00 – 14.00 Lunch break
Update on JHEP-Joint Heritage European Programme implementation and activities - WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 and WP1 Leaders (15 min each)
Discussion, all Participants
JPICH - JHEP-Joint Heritage European Programme: Road map for future activities, Antonia Pasqua Recchia – JPICH Coordinator
1
JPICH evaluation: GPC Meeting, Maria Uccellatore – GPC member (MiUR)
Discussion, all Participants
17.00 End of the meeting
Minute:
On October 19th 2012, the 7th Governing Board meeting for the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new
challenge for Europe (JPICH) was held in Rome (Italy), at the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, via del Collegio Romano, 27.

Opening and welcome address:
Antonia P. Recchia, welcomes the participants and a round table presentation follows.

Adoption of the provisional agenda
The Governing Board (GB) Members approve the meeting agenda

Approval of the minute of the JPI Governing Board Meeting held on 23rd of March 2012
The Governing Board (GB) members approve the meeting minute.

JPICH First pilot call: MoU, Guidelines for applicants, roadmap
Follows a discussion on the MoU revised by the JHEP Steering Committee on October, 18th and the following additional amendments are agreed.
Article 1 no comments were added
Article 2, paragraph 4: it is going to be moved to Article 7
Article 2, paragraph 5: the following sentence will constitute this paragraph: “Each Signatory will designate a contact person”.
Article 3, paragraph 3. It is discussed about the minimum number of research groups which may apply for the proposal. The Governing Board is
asked to vote on a minimum of two or three. The majority votes for a minimum of three. The paragraph which follows is moved to article 7.
Article 3, paragraph 2: Mrs Brae (Denmark) suggests to include artifacts in art 3 2nd paragraph among the terms buildings, landscapes. Gail
Lambourne (UK) states that the terms tangible, intangible and digital already include all these issues, so she suggests that any other term isn’t
included.
Article 3, paragraph 4: the paragraph which follows will be moved to article 7.
Article 4- It is decided not to specify the deadline in the MoU. It is set to be anyway confirmed on November 15th.
Article 5- In order to avoid conflict of interest, the bodies which cannot apply to this call will be better specified in the text of the MoU, that is
Steering Committee Members, Executive Board and Governing Board Members, and others directly involved in the assessment process.
Article 6 -The Governing Board is required to discuss different options regarding the composition of the Scientific Evaluation Committee including:
SEC= 3 Members of Scientific Committee + Independent experts appointed by the Signatories through transparent procedure; JPI Scientific
Committee which is an already existing body in JPI.
It is decided that the rewording of this paragraph can be following: “The assessment of proposals will be undertaken by the Scientific Committee
supplemented, if necessary, by other experts chosen by the Scientific Committee from a new list of independent international experts proposed by JPI
Participants. The expertise of the Scientific Committee will, therefore, cover all fields of research addressed in the call”.
Article 7- paragraph 1: it will be integrated with article 2, paragraph 4. Some paragraphs of the other articles will be moved here because of specific
funding requirements included in them.
The MoU containing the above mentioned amendments and the English grammar revision is going to be sent to all partners for signature by
November, 15th.
Follows a discussion on two points of the Guideline for Applicants: the minimum and maximum value of project budget.
The Governing Board is then asked to express the minimum and maximum budget each Country shall invest for each proposal and, in addition,
which instrument is likely to be funded whether networking and collaborative research.
2
Mark Llewellyn (United Kingdom) suggests that the instrument to be financed should be discussed first. The Governing Board is asked to express a
preference between networking and cooperation research projects.
UK: networking projects
PL: both
ES: both
DK: networking projects
Norway: networking projects
The Netherlands: networking and small pilot projects
IE: networking projects
F: networking projects
CY: research activity
Slovenia: both
Slovakia: networking projects
Italy: both
Lithuania: networking projects
The Governing Board decides not to mention a minimum and maximum budget in the Guide for Applicants, paragraph 2.4.
The Governing Board decides not to mention the two different instruments (networking and cooperation research projects) in paragraph 2.7 of the
Guide for Applicants but it will be specified in Annex 1- Funding Program following the rules of a single country.
Comments on the Guide for Applicants already sent to all Governing Board members are requested by October, 30th.
The Road map for the launch of the first Pilot Call will be presented within JHEP WP3.

Update on JHEP-Joint Heritage European Programme implementation and activities: Gail Lambourne, (UK)
An update on WP2 activities performed so far follows. A brief overview of the objectives, tasks and timelines of the different deliverables in this WP
is made. Reminder to the Governing Board on the process so far, creation of experts group and development of common framework, achievement of
task 2.1 and 2.2 and work in progress for tasks 2.3 and 2.4.
Lunch break
14.00 Afternoon session

Road map fist pilot call, Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure)
Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure) presents the road map for the first Pilot Call as follows: by November 15th the second draft of the
Guideline for Participants is going to circulate, by November 30th Participants are requested to send the amendments to the Coordinator (including
National Sheet for funding rules), by December 15th the Coordinator will circulate the final text of the Guideline for Applicants to the participants for
approval; the organization of a video conference with Pilot Call Participants for Guidelines approval will follow. By December 31th a testing for web
site submission is going to take place. On January 10th 2013 the Pilot Call will be finally launched.

Update on ERA-NET Plus call, Michel Chapuis (European Commission)
European Commission updates on ERA-NET Plus Call. European Commission is going to set up a panel of experts in the field of Cultural Heritage
for the call evaluation in March-April 2013. The Commission has at the moment no further information to give. Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination
Structure) asks for confirmation that in defining the topics on which this ERA-NET Plus proposal will be launched, we may refer to the SRA
mentioning the 4 broad area of research on which this JPI will be developed. Michel Chapuis (European Commission) agrees on focusing more on
tangible heritage but specifies that this has not to be made exclusively. Despite the fact that the call text mentions tangible heritage, the concept is
however to be extended to intangible and digital; it is mentioned in the text of the call. Making reference to the SRA and mentioning it is accepted by
the Commission. The discussion focuses then on two major issues: topics and financial mode (how EC contribution is going to be distributed)
For what concerns topics, the four priority areas identified in the SRA are proposed as the starting point for ERA-NET Plus proposals:
3




Developing a reflective society (Recognition)
Connecting people with heritage (Access)
Creating knowledge (Interpretation)
Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource (Protection)
Sylvie Collinart (France) considers that the proposed topics cover perfectly the issues raised by France regarding the request of intangible cultural
heritage to be visible in the ERA-NET proposal.
The mobilisation of efforts and funding should reflect that tangible heritage is the main focus not excluding the other two, i.e digital and intangible.
Tangible is the main issue of the call and intangible and digital have to be integrated. The synergy need to be well explained; that is the message
coming from the Commission. It is agreed that the starting point for ERA-NET Plus proposal will be the work performed by SRA starting from the 4
priority.
EC Funding mode:
It is then discussed about how the 33% funding given by Commission is intended to be managed in case the proposal passes.
Countries can decide: i) to use EC funding as real common pot, following the ranking list; ii) to divide the EC funding proportionally depending on
single national funding; iii) to use the mixed mode, that is part as real common pot and part proportionally divided. The mixed mode seems to be the
most feasible on a general agreement.
For the ERA-NET proposal the Coordinator needs an official letter of agreement on behalf of the organisation which is going to fund the second
JPICH/JHEP call, declaring the amount of money which is going to be funded.

ERA-NET Plus: proposal preparation and roadmap, Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure)
Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure) shows the road map of the ERA-Net plus proposal as follows:
A participant description(following the sent template) is needed to be sent to the Coordinator by November, 30th
The Coordinator will send the Proposal structure to the participants by December, 15th
The Proposal draft 1is going to circulate by January, 15th
A WP Leader Meeting (videoconference) is going to take place on January, 30th
The second Proposal draft 2 is going to circulate by February, 15th, and finally the proposal submission will be made on February, 28th.
It is decided to schedule a meeting on January, 16 th for the ERA-NET Plus proposal definition. The Coordinator suggests that it takes place in Brussel.

Update on JHEP-Joint Heritage European Programme implementation and activities - WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 and WP1 Leaders
WP3: Implementation of Joint Programming Initiative, Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure)
One of the main objectives of this WP is the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda in the most efficient and effective way through the
definition of an Action Programme. Among the actions foreseen in the Development of the Action Programme the process of preparation of the 1st
Pilot Call is described and the preparation of the road map and action program for the second Call possibly within the ERA- NET Plus project is
presented.
WP4: Extending the Partnership and Cooperation, Cristina Sabbioni (Coordination Structure)
Brief overview on the activities performed so far : actions toward Observer Countries to promote their role as Participants have been implemented.
Actions to foster cooperation with other JPIs such as JPI Seas and Ocean (coordinated by Norway) and JPI Urban Europe (coordinated by Austria)
have been undertaken on themes such as tourism, transport, urban planning, smart cities. The participation to the meeting held on September 28th in
order to foster the coordination with JPI Climate (coordinated by Germany) is presented.
During the meeting Euro-Mediterranean Conference on Research and Innovation in Barcellona on April 2nd, 3rd a presentation on JPICH was
made. Da Rivedere, ma dove? Sulle slide del WP4 è scritto così, ditemi voi
WP5: monitoring and evaluating the JPI, Vincent Israel-Jost (France)
Indicators of success will be identified for each objective and key area of the JPI, as well as indicators of mechanisms dealing mostly with research
and external indicators dealing with societal challenges. The immediate actions which will be undertaken foresee the gathering a group of experts,
appointed by Member States, working on a list of indicators that represent well the JPI’s goals, with experts, working on a methodology to acquire
data, to interpret them and to design an appropriate scale, also with experts.
WP6: Communication and Dissemination, Eimear O’Connel (IE)
4
A brief presentation on the setting out of the Heritage Portal follows.
As the Danish partner, Ellen Braae notices the difference between the logo which has been published on the JPI/JHEP web site and the one which
appears on the Heritage Portal, a discussion is raised on this issue. It’s decided that the Heritage Portal logo will remind more the one of the official
web site, in order to give a common graphical identity to the two information tools.

Future activities, Patrizia Bianconi (Coordination Structure)
The next JPI/JHEP meetings will be held in March (20th working groups, 21st, Steering Committee 22nd Governing Board. A further proposal is to
postpone the mid-term assessment meeting on a specific day in May, as it will probably take a whole day and it is not possible to include it in the
three days meeting in March. On January, 16th it is decided to have a meeting in order to promote the Eranet Plus; the Coordinator suggests that it
takes place in Brussel.

JPICH evaluation: GPC Meeting, Maria Uccellatore (MIUR)
Follows then a presentation by Maria Uccellatore. An update on the activities performed after the GPC held in Brussel on May, 24th is given pointing
out the major outputs raised by the questionnaire forwarded to all JPIs. Then the main points discussed during last GPC held in Brussel on September
19th are explained. The future activities and events such as the Biennial Conference in Dublin in 2013 is cited, as well as the attention that the
Ministry of Education University and Research is dedicating to the JPIs.
The GB meeting concludes at 4.45 pm.
5