Dear colleagues,

 

I have studied Mike’s matrix, which provides a comprehensive and efficient overview.

 

Being a member of the Programme Committee of the SPACE Programme, I have a rather clear (and unpleasant) picture of the programme resources allocation. The vast majority of the resources will be spent for GMES. Actually a large part of this vast majority will be provided through direct negotiations to ESA (i.e. with no open call for proposals), fulfilling the promises/obligations of the EC regarding GMES implementation. Needless to say, this is quite negative for Space Science, which is certainly mentioned prominently in the Work Programme, but funding is unfortunately much inferior than its “image” in the documentation.

 

I have personally advocated space sciences, not only in the SPACE Programme Committee, but also in the High-level Space Policy Group, the joint ESA/EC committee working on the joint European Space Policy, which has largely driven the SPACE theme of FP7 (and which mainly supports Earth Observation applications). My success was partial, in the sense that space science and space weather eventually appeared in texts, without however becoming core issues. I also know that several colleagues have experienced from their contacts with the GMES steering entities and persons, space weather is not considered as a major issue of GMES.

 

Therefore, space weather does not appear under Activities 9.1 (where the bulk of funding is directed), but under Activities 9.2 (as you can see in page 42 of the provisional work programme, which I am attaching for those who have not retrieved it yet), where all of space science is covered.

 

Of course it is very positive that science and in particular space weather have been included in this theme of FP7! Unfortunately we cannot draw support from the big pot, which is GMES!

 

The Work Programme will be formally approved in the next meeting of the Programme Committee, which is planned for January 18. Theoretically the possibility for (minor, but meaningful) modifications still exists. I would be happy to bring any meaningful suggestion to the table in Brussels. I would also like to comment that the Programme Committee does not participate in the evaluation process, but has the formal authority to discuss and approve the (evaluated) projects for eventual funding. This is especially critical for proposals that fall in the reserve list.

 

Finally, I would like to note that our Institute would be eager to participate in any collaborative effort; the Institute operates an advanced real-time ionospheric station (PI Anna Belehaki) and is currently setting up a magnetometer array.

 

With best wishes for the New Year!

Yannis Daglis

 

Dear colleagues,

 

As part of the preparation for our meeting on 23 January, I have drafted a cross-reference matrix showing how different space weather topics might be linked to different programmes within Framework 7. This is available as an Excel spreadsheet on

http://listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/files/SWWT/fp7_matrix_v1.xls

 

Please may I invite you to comment on this matrix? I would very much welcome your additions and updates.

 

My aim here is see how we can fit our space weather interests into FP7 in a proactive manner. I have tried to cover all FP7 programmes and not just those with open calls (see Paul Gille’s recent email). It is important that we start to think now about calls for 2008.

 

Best regards,

Mike

 

***************************************************************************

  Mike Hapgood                              Tel:  +44 1235 44 6520

  Rutherford Appleton Laboratory            Mob:  +44 789 9908 780

  Chilton                                   Fax:  +44 1235 44 5848

  DIDCOT

  Oxfordshire  OX11 0QX                   Email:  [log in to unmask]

  United Kingdom

***************************************************************************