Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

FP7

SECUREPART Report Summary

Project ID: 608039
Funded under: FP7-SECURITY
Country: Spain

Final Report Summary - SECUREPART (Increasing the engagement of civil society in security research)

Executive Summary:
The SecurePART project relates to the issues addressed by the Security Call in Topic SEC-2013.7.3.1: Increasing the engagement of civil society in security research – Coordination and Support Action (Supporting Action).

SecurePART is a project that explored ways to strengthen the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) within the European Security Research Programme (ESRP). SecurePART was funded by the EU Security Research Programme, but it also has strong links with two other research domains within the EU research Framework Programme: “Europe in a changing world - Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies”; and the cross-cutting research area “Science with and for Society”.

The Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge “Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens” currently involves research in four broad areas: Crisis management and resilience against disasters; organised crime; counter-terrorism, and anti-radicalisation; border control and management; and cybersecurity. Most crucially, security research can be taken to be a proactive form of security policy, creating a pool of potential measures and solutions to address current and future challenges in the increasingly important and contentious policy field of public security.

In SecurePART we pursued a multi-stakeholder-governance approach with regard to the ESRP. Besides CSOs from a variety of sectors and regions, with different degrees of familiarity with security research, we explored the views and actions of other research actors from academia, industry and SMEs, but also policy makers from member states, representatives from National Contact Points for EU research, officers from the European Commission with relevant dossiers, as well as officers from the Research Executive Agency. We have scoped other research fields for stakeholder engagement practices, such as genetic technology or nano-technology, which have generated controversies in society.

After analysing the institutional context of relevant research and engagement policies, we applied a supply-demand (“push-pull”) logic in order to find out about existing, missing or untapped opportunity structures for CSO engagement in the ESRP, but also about capacities and incentives for CSOs and other research actors to come together in a productive manner. This led us to conduct a feasibility/desirability check of all involved stakeholders in order to identify barriers arising from their capacity and willingness to engage CSOs.

Project Context and Objectives:
SecurePART is a project that explored ways to strengthen the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) within the European Security Research Programme (ESRP). SecurePART was funded by the EU Security Research Programme, but it also has strong links with two other research domains within the EU research Framework Programme: “Europe in a changing world - Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies”; and the cross-cutting research area “Science with and for Society”.

The Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge “Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens” currently involves research in four broad areas: Crisis management and resilience against disasters; organised crime; counter-terrorism, and anti-radicalisation; border control and management; and cybersecurity. Most crucially, security research can be taken to be a proactive form of security policy, creating a pool of potential measures and solutions to address current and future challenges in the increasingly important and contentious policy field of public security.

In SecurePART we pursued a multi-stakeholder-governance approach with regard to the ESRP. Besides CSOs from a variety of sectors and regions, with different degrees of familiarity with security research, we explored the views and actions of other research actors from academia, industry and SMEs, but also policy makers from member states, representatives from National Contact Points for EU research, officers from the European Commission with relevant dossiers, as well as officers from the Research Executive Agency. We have scoped other research fields for stakeholder engagement practices, such as genetic technology or nano-technology, which have generated controversies in society.

After analysing the institutional context of relevant research and engagement policies, we applied a supply-demand (“push-pull”) logic in order to find out about existing, missing or untapped opportunity structures for CSO engagement in the ESRP, but also about capacities and incentives for CSOs and other research actors to come together in a productive manner. This led us to conduct a feasibility/desirability check of all involved stakeholders in order to identify barriers arising from their capacity and willingness to engage CSOs.

The SecurePART project implements 3 main activities as described in the list below:
Activity 1 - Analysis and Studies
1. Analyse the content and status of FP7 security research projects
The project consortium made desk research of CSOs involvement in FP7 projects, based on the 6 different roles they can play: policy observers, project evaluators, programme agenda influencers, performers of projects, commissioners of research and disseminators;
2. Reviews on other non-security research who have a similar problem of acceptance by the society
SecurePART analysed best practice not only in the Security Sector, but also in other sectors that have a similar problem of acceptance by the society, like the Chemical technology industry, and more actual the Nano-technology or Genetic-technology.
3. Societal & CSO analyses
Analyse the Intra, Inter and Trans CSO status. A model of public policy stakeholder management along criteria of high/low power and high/low relevance will identify converging or diverging:
(a) Framings and understandings of security problems;
(b) Resources available;
(c) Fears, needs and vulnerabilities;
(d) Ethical aspects of Security and Cultural values in Europe
Activity 2 - Increase the engagement of CSOs in security research
4. Development of communication plan about potential benefits of security research activities
The aim is to bring together stakeholders from both sectors – Civil Society Organizations & security research – to work out a “case for action” highlighting the necessity for the civil society to participate more intensively in the management of crises as well as in the strategic orientation of security research.
Therefore we created a communication strategy and plan about potential benefits of security research which was designed to group the communication activities, underlying the connection with CSOs and the awakening of an interest towards security research.This activity included:
• Evaluation of communication actions carried out
• Identification of Good Practices in communicating about security research;
• Communication Plan Design;
• Communication campaign addressed to CSOs.
Activity 3 - Future strategy & action plan
5. Strategy for increasing CSO participation & Action plan
The objective is to learn from the activities/experiences gained during the project in order to draw guidelines and recommendations at EU level.
The action plan will take in consideration how to interconnect/integrate CSOs in decision finding and, progressively, in decision making processes. (Example: one result could be the recommendation within the RoadMap to set up a “living lab” of security researchers and CSOs continuously defining and testing new research results as well as crises management procedures within an ongoing cooperation.)

Project Results:
The SecurePART project implements 3 main activities as described in the list below:
Activity 1 - Analysis and Studies
1. Analyse the content and status of FP7 security research projects
The project consortium made desk research of CSOs involvement in FP7 projects, based on the 6 different roles they can play: policy observers, project evaluators, programme agenda influencers, performers of projects, commissioners of research and disseminators;

Associated public deliverables (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html):
D1.2 - Background Report
D1.5 - Interviews report
D1.6 - Six case studies
D1.7 - Statistical analysis report
D1.8 - SWOT analysis report
D1.9 - Interview guide
D1.10 - Conclusions report

What have we researched and what do we know about CSO involvement in Security Research?
Civil Society Organisations are broadly defined as non-government, not-for-profit organisations, through which people organise to pursue shared objectives and ideals—often for the ‘public good’. However, CSOs have often multiple personalities due to the different roles they are called on to perform under varying circumstances, whenever they interact with other stakeholders. This also applies to their engagement in European security research. CSOs have dramatically grown in number and have evolved out of their classical role by transforming themselves, as societal challenges and political contexts of action have changed in the past couple of years. Most generic, “fuzzy” definitions of CSOs, used by public policy actors nowadays, are inclusive, yet they do not help discern “real”, public-interest CSOs from organizations and associations with a particularistic, for-profit agenda.
Narrow definitions, on the other hand, may be better at the operative policy level, when it comes to selecting relevant CSOs for consultations, project funding, etc., but they create many deviations from the rule, and a lot of exclusion of organizations which do not completely correspond to the ideal core.

Size and resources of CSOs
Most of the selected CSOs for the study are small or even very small (micro), as regards number of employees and budget. CSOs with more than 100 employees and 5M€ are a minority in Europe.
Most of the CSOs that are involved in security research are medium or large organizations with branches at international, European, national and also at regional or local level. Depending on the focus of activity or project where they are working, they can involve any of the following specific levels.
CSOs do not have sufficient resources to be committed to activities that are outside of the main aim of the organization. Only large CSOs, with an international or European focus, have enough resources or specific units devoted to research activities. But there are exceptions, as there are a few very small and small CSOs with European activity focused on research.

Interest of CSOs in security research
Interests of CSOs: they are strongly related to ethical and societal dimensions of security research. Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-threats for CSO engagement in security research: the analysis of CSOs with regard to the security research landscape has shown that CSOs’ strengths are their “hands-on” style and their understanding of societal and practical issues “on the ground”. In the security Science & Technology context, this endows CSOs with the capacity to be trusted “brokers” and “facilitators”, with the potential to raise trust among researchers, society, and public policy makers. Therefore, their input can be invaluable in bridging security R&D with societal needs and ethical concerns of citizens. This untapped potential can under certain circumstances open windows for them to participate, and also help disseminate and increase the value of research results, potentially enhancing their uptake. However, if they are not willing or lack the resources to participate in dialogue with other stakeholders, or find common denominators in their agenda and that of security research, then their relevance for the ESRP and their capacity to make a useful contribution will probably decline.

Where CSOs would like to be involved
The project has detected a wide spectrum of fields and technologies where CSOs might be involved: First ‘individual civil rights’ followed by ‘minority’s rights’, ‘privacy’, ‘environmental risks’, ‘cybersecurity’ or ‘health risks’. In line with the security research fields most interesting to CSOs, crisis management is by large, the most important, followed by infrastructure protection, counter- terror, physical protection and borders.

When an how the involvement of CSOs in security research took place
The analysis has allowed us to understand the scope and involvement of CSOs in security research during the last 6 years and the periodicity or frequency of their activity in this matter. We found that 54% of the activities in security research where CSOs had a European background, 22% of them were at a national level, 20% at an international level, and 4% at a regional or local level. We have concluded that 69% of CSOs had direct involvement in this activity and 31% had an indirect relationship with Security Research.

The more usual roles played by CSOs
The roles played by CSOs are, in order of frequency: observer, actor of research, disseminator of research results, influencer. Also, a small percentage have worked as users of the research, project evaluators, program evaluator or commissioner of research.

Internal and external barriers faced by CSOs
Internal barriers have been identified from the analysis: CSOs have more difficulty to be involved in security research according to – by order - staff structure or size of the CSO, CSOs mandates or priorities, inappropriate staff skills, poor involvement of the members and other collaborators and inappropriate plan of the activities to generate interest.
On the institutional side, the rather low compatibility between CSOs’ agendas and missions results in mutual ignorance and lack of interest. While the ESRP and its research calls have a dominant
high-tech industrial character, aimed to strengthen the marketing of security technologies, most CSOs care about issues of civil and minority rights. Such agendas could, however, become more compatible in the future.

SecurePART analysed best practice not only in the Security Sector, but also in other sectors that have a similar problem of acceptance by the society, like the Chemical technology industry, and more actual the Nano-technology or Genetic-technology.
Controversial technologies have one feature in common, they lack transparency vis-á-vis civil society. This contributes considerably to the rejection of critical technologies. In order to improve this, there is a need to apply tools/methods to make technologies transparent and:
• to make them understandable
• to demonstrate their function
• to demonstrate their benefits
• to prepare their utilisation.

When achieving these goals, feedback is received from the civil society regarding their demands. For the objective of SecurePART to increase the CSO participation in security research the proposed tools and methods are a complementary approach to empowering the CSOs. The proposed tools and methods have the potential to be a key element to support the objective “Strengthen transparency, fairness, and accountability”.
It is therefore recommended to make use of the tools:
• Consensus Conferences
• Demonstration Projects
• Participatory Technology Assessment
• Public Days an integrated part of the strategy for increasing CSO participation in security research.

Associated are the following deliverables:
D 2.1 Report on Technology Fields Selection
D 2.3 Report on selected method and application scenario to the security research field
D 2.7 Recommendations report for WP5 input.

3. Societal & CSO analyses
Analyse the Intra, Inter and Trans CSO status. A model of public policy stakeholder management along criteria of high/low power and high/low relevance will identify converging or diverging:
(a) Framings and understandings of security problems;
(b) Resources available;
(c) Fears, needs and vulnerabilities;
(d) Ethical aspects of Security and Cultural values in Europe

Associated public deliverables (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html):
D3.1 - Report on CSOs internal capacities
D3.2 - Report on the collaborative links among CSOs
D3.3 - Matrix of CSOs and other stakeholders' perception and expectations

Main results achieved
DEFINITION, CATEGORIES and ROLES of CSOs
According to the European Commission, civil society encompasses trade unions and employers’ organisations (“social partners”), non-governmental organisations, professional associations, charities, grass-roots organisations, and organisations that involve citizens in local and municipal life, including churches and religious communities. These are supposed to lend a voice to the needs of all citizens, and provide a communication channel for them to policy makers. Civil Society Organisations are broadly defined as:
“... all non-state, not-for-profit structures, non-partisan and nonviolent, through which people organise to pursue shared objectives and ideals, whether political, cultural, social or economic.” (European Commission (2012), The Roots of Democracy and Sustainable Development. Europe's Engagement with Civil Society in External Relations, Brussels, 12/9/2012. COM(2012) 492 final)
A preliminary analysis of the CORDIS database conducted by SecurePART helped discern the following categories of CSOs, many of which are practitioners of security provision:
• Medical disaster first aid/relief associations;
• Emergency Services (Fire brigades & rescue services;
• Transport associations & passenger rights NGOs;
• Community & neighbourhood integration associations;
• Human/civil rights associations;
• ICT/cyber liberties & data protection organisations;
• Climate change and environmental organizations;
• Development cooperation organizations;
• Think Tanks & foundations;
• Science dissemination organisations
Many of the above categories contain hybrid organisations, which are on the border between public administration, research organisations, or small enterprises. Yet a major challenge is the lack of a clear, jointly shared and legally binding definition of what is a CSO.
CSOs are under-represented within EU security research projects. The SecurePART coding in the CORDIS database resulted in an approximate percentage of 4% of CSOs out of ca. 2,000 total beneficiaries. However, the ex-post evaluation of FP7 Security theme (2015) did not differentiate among CSOs and other organisations, and CSOs necessarily fell into the category “Other”, accounting for around 3% of total participations.
CSOs have already undertaken a number of roles within security research with different intensity in terms of format, and different goals, while they still aspire to undertake roles with more influence:
1. Observers: CSOs get information on H2020 programme at info days, project and policy conferences;
2. Advisors: CSOs are invited to become members in external advisory boards during the project implementation phase;
3. Actors of research: CSOs participate in research as members of a project consortium, often as disseminators raising awareness to key target groups:
4. Project evaluators & reviewers: CSOs are invited by the EC services as external experts to conduct evaluations and reviews;
5. Security research agenda consultants: CSOs are consulted during the drafting of the future security research programme agenda;
6. Commissioners of research: CSOs formulate research calls with a strong security research relevance

THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR CSO ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH:
Since the launch of the Lisbon Treaty societal engagement in policy making in general, and in S&T research is pursued by the EU for both for democratic reasons, and for instrumental reasons – engagement improves the research results and the relevance of policies by including societal knowledge, ideas and capacities in research and increasing the knowledge base for policy making. In contentious and sensitive research fields, such as that of security, compliance with the Treaty of Fundamental Rights is essential. Funding lines have been identified, which provide access to CSOs to research funding in the FP7/Horizon 2020 programmes: Priority III “Societal challenges”, which includes seven thematic priorities, one of them being the Work Programme “Secure societies”, as well as one of its two specific objectives, the objective V “Science with and for Society”. A general dedicated funding scheme “Research for the Benefit of Specific Groups – Civil Society Organisations” (BSG-CSO) had been also introduced in FP7. There are many indications for optimism about the degree and the breadth of engagement of CSOs in most areas, something which applies only partially to the ESRP. CSOs are mostly invited for their expertise on the ground, and for their role as brokers and disseminators of results, but less as active influencers, designers, or implementers of the (security) research agenda.

THE STAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT IN THE EUROPEAN SECURITY RESEARCH:
Based upon surveys and data evaluations, stakeholder categories and types, such as social and human scientists, security industry actors/technology developers, end-users, security policy makers, and civil society representatives have been distinguished for analytical reasons as distinct types of actors. The study of their “master frames”, interests, goals and concerns with security research revealed some common ground, but also a lot of divergence and some deep cleavages. Most interesting thereby is the broad and fuzzy category of end-users, which often comprises CSOs, public authorities, and private companies of security provision. In addition, there is a huge discrepancy between CSO and other stakeholders’ participation in security research project consortia, which amounts to less than 5%. The examination of the role of CSOs within consultation forums and ad-hoc expert groups has shown very limited presence, and a similar picture results out of the comparison of stakeholders with regard to the resources received from the ESRP. The analysis provided the background for a multi-stakeholder power/interest matrix, which attempted to position CSOs in relation to other stakeholders with regard to their influence on the ESRP. While RTOs [write out in full] and big security industry, along with SMEs, have been the strongest profit from and leverage within the security programme, public authorities and universities seem to be left behind, while CSOs play a negligible role, also under the cloak of ‘end-users’. The matrix provide a first mapping of CSOs in relation to other key players within the ESRP research environment, which will help with identifying institutional barriers, but also opportunity windows for CSOs, as well as contribute to strengthening, upstreaming, and streamlining their engagement in security research for mutual benefit.

BARRIERS TO CSO ENGAGEMENT IN THE ESRP
In a series of interviews, online surveys, and an interactive CSO-Stakeholder workshop, SecurePART found out that:
There are CSOs that appear to have an explicit interest in security research and have participated/can participate in research actions. However, more than one third of the interviewed CSOs do not readily recognize much relevance of security research to their activities—at least not at first sight—and therefore do not participate. There is also a considerable proportion among the interviewed CSOs which have an explicit interest in security research, but lack access to research actions. This highlights target groups of CSOs for security research offering an untapped potential. Those that do not yet recognise the relevance of security research could be sensitized and mobilized to participate in future research actions for mutual benefit; those already willing to participate need better access opportunities.
CSO representatives, from a diverse range of backgrounds, stated that their motivation to participate in EU security research is linked with their activities on the ground, also linked to political, social, and ethical concerns of the citizens.
In general, CSOs are confronted with a series of internal and external barriers when it comes to the European Security Research Programme. CSOs face the challenge of being informed and being visible to other security research actors, linking their organisation’s mandates with the concrete security research topics, and, not least, employing the appropriate staff to conduct research. What is more, many CSOs seem to be alienated by the predominantly technological focus of the ESRP, as well as deterred by administrative hurdles, and by the poor relationships with other security research actors. Unfortunately, there is a lack of CSO networks in security-relevant fields to promote their agendas at EU level.
At the same time, it is not easy for research administrators at the European Commission to recognise advantages and benefits of CSO engagement in security research actions. The situation may be exacerbated by a tendency amongst project co-ordinators and partners (such as research and technology organisations, universities, or industry including SMEs) to fail to include CSOs in their activities, or simply assign them dissemination roles or less-substantial tasks.
A frequent point of resistance toward wide (CSO) participation from the side of industrial developers and commercial service providers is confidentiality about security research outputs fearing about patents and comparative market advantages.

Activity 2 - Increase the engagement of CSOs in security research
4. Development of communication plan about potential benefits of security research activities
The aim is to bring together stakeholders from both sectors – Civil Society Organizations & security research – to work out a “case for action” highlighting the necessity for the civil society to participate more intensively in the management of crises as well as in the strategic orientation of security research.
Therefore we created a communication strategy and plan about potential benefits of security research which was designed to group the communication activities, underlying the connection with CSOs and the awakening of an interest towards security research.This activity included:
• Evaluation of communication actions carried out
• Identification of Good Practices in communicating about security research;
• Communication Plan Design;
• Communication campaign addressed to CSOs.

Associated public deliverables (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html):
D4.2 - Communication materials
D4.4 - Summary of the communication actions carried out

Some Examples (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html):
• Project Flyer for CSOs
• First Period Results
• Guide for Promoters of Communication Activities in the field of Security Research: A special focus on CSOs
• Guide why and how to participate in Horizon 2020 Security Research

Main results achieved
Organize several international events with participants coming from all the sectors / categories of stakeholders involved or possibly interested in ESRP. (The detailed communication actions are presented in Deliverable 4.4; all the events attended by the partners are in Deliverables 6.4 and 6.5)
See the links here and here
Engage and bring forward, through ENNA, but also through the network of its members and partners, various CSOs over the entire period of the project (participants to the interview phase recommended the project to other colleagues / collaborators which, at a later stage, got involved in the events organized by the consortium).

Realize and promote different materials and communication messages addressed to a diverse public (CSOs, Security Research project coordinators, wide public).
For example, the messages promoted on the project’s Facebook page.

Activity 3 - Future strategy & action plan
5. Strategy for increasing CSO participation & Action plan
The objective is to learn from the activities/experiences gained during the project in order to draw guidelines and recommendations at EU level.
The action plan will take in consideration how to interconnect/integrate CSOs in decision finding and, progressively, in decision making processes. (Example: one result could be the recommendation within the RoadMap to set up a “living lab” of security researchers and CSOs continuously defining and testing new research results as well as crises management procedures within an ongoing cooperation.)

Associated public deliverables (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html):
D5.1 - Plan for rules of participation of CSOs
D5.2 - Map of stakeholders ranking of values and objectives
D5.3 - Recommendation on permanent institutional set-ups for CSO engagement in Security Research
D5.4 - Foresight Report of CSO participation in Security Research

Main results achieved:

Plan for rules of participation of CSOs (Report D5.1)
• Tasks 5.1 and 5.3 have flown here: Besides examining the literature for the state-of-play analyses on rules of CSO participation, we also scanned for the realities and the modalities of CSO participation in a number of International Organisations including EU institutions (GUF). Of particular importance is the aspect of legitimacy behind representation, that is the capacity of CSOs to stand for wider, if not all, segments of the population, representing thus the “public good”, or the “common interest” (NEXUS). Additionally, we identified and presented ten documented best practices of CSO participation in security research actions, in order to exemplify potential ingredients of a successful “recipe”, or basis requirements for future planning of security research actions (SAL, GUF, VDL LOBA). In this respect, the conditions for a successful participation are exemplified and demonstrated in concrete cases of diverse CSOs participating in research projects, advisory boards, and the Security Advisory Group. The series of “success stories” featured in this report point to a small number of good practices that seem to be necessary in order to engage CSOs in a wider and more meaningful way. Early and equal involvement in the research design along with a strong function as multiplicators/hubs to the services and the citizens are two central ones (BANTEC, ENNA). The findings and insights of the present report allow us to come up with a snapshot of the institutional/organisational reality with regard to the roles, administrative dimensions, interests, and relations of CSOs with other stakeholders in the security research landscape. The report ends with a number of recommendations directed to different stakeholders of security research at each of the stages of the research cycle.

Map of stakeholders ranking of values and objectives (Report D5.2)
• This report draws from tasks 5.2 and 5.4. It provides more specific views about and by a number of stakeholders involved in security research. It starts by exposing the field of European citizens’ views in Eurobarometer surveys about issues, ranging from Public Perceptions of Science, Research and Innovation”, to “Data Protection”, “attitudes towards security”, “Civil Protection”, “Cyber Security”, as well as about “Europeans’ Engagement in Participatory Democracy”(VDL, GUF). Subsequently, the CSO views upon values, interests, objectives, but also resource- and agenda-relevant barriers as explored in the SecurePART series of interviews and surveys will be presented (BANTEC, ENNA). These are complemented by the SecurePART multi-stakeholder Berlin workshop, where CSOs deliberated about desirable modes of participation as well as the relevant security research agenda, but also about the envisioned future value out of security research for the society (NEXUS, GUF). The last two sections address two specific categories: First, that of National Contact Points, which act as hubs and matchmakers among potential participants in security research on behalf of their member states. We have conducted a dedicated survey and a webinar to reach out that category of stakeholders (LOBA, ENNA). Second, policy makers from the European Commission who are responsible for planning, conducting, and evaluating research actions (GUF).

Recommendation on permanent institutional set-ups for CSO engagement in Security Research (Report D5.3)
• This study has examined existing set ups in EU for Security Research and institutional and organizational possibilities outside Security Research field, which could be imported to Security Research as reference of CSO involvement. In this regard the study has analysed the Mobilization and Mutual Learning EU projects (precedent and ongoing projects).
It was expected that this study will help on the identification of potential existing set ups as reference models; will Identify formats that are most promising for establishing mutual exchange with CSOs in the context of security research is because of that we analysed MML (Mobilization and Mutual Learning EU projects); and will give us the possibility to suggest tentative key points to be considered when design a platform in SR.
The main aims of the study were to identify existing Multi stakeholder Exchange platforms in EU involving CSO and determinate how permanent and influence they are. It has been examined institutional and organizational possibilities outside for SR to identify transferable “good practices" which could be imported to Security Research as models of CSO involvement process. And finally suggest key aspects to guarantee involvement of CSO in this kind of Multi stakeholder Exchange Platforms.
Foresight Report of CSO participation in Security Research (Report D5.4)

• This report draws primarily from task 5.7, and also integrates the findings from tasks 5.5 and 5.6. It documents the positioning and role of CSOs with regard to forward-looking, anticipatory aspects of security research. It examines the dimensions of foresight about CSOs’ role in security provision and security research, security foresight exercises conducted by CSOs (e.g. in project consortia), and last but not least, foresight conducted with CSOs (e.g. as invited actors at dedicated workshops) (NEXUS). The report will turn to the role of CSOs in security foresight projects, which has been rather marginal. Subsequently, it examines potential future modes for engaging CSOs in the European (Security) Research Landscape, as well as an estimation of the prospects of such an engagement (GUF). The last section addresses the linkage of Trust with SR stakeholders’ Capacity and Will to collaborate and build productive interactions which deliver desirable impacts (BANTEC). In order to formulate policy-action oriented suggestions in the SecurePART Final Action Plan, this report corresponds in a two dimensional strategy matrix necessary actions for each stage of the Security Research Cycle, addressed for different categories of stakeholders (BANTEC, NEXUS). Finally, the report suggests a number of forward-looking topics for research, promoting both CSOs’ agendas, and with a high potential value for security providers and end-users of research, and also for policy-makers (SAL, GUF). These topics are meant to strike alternative paths, point at ‘cross-over’ research topics which may result in joint programming among different EU research areas in the future, and fill therefore certain ‘gaps’ in the existing research directions.

Final SecurePART Action Plan Recommendations for strengthening CSO engagement in Security Research:
The following recommendations are addressed to key stakeholder groups and correspond to the security research cycle. The evidence which builds their background, along with a series of ‘Success Stories’ and ‘Best Practices’ is documented and further elaborated in the reports published by SecurePART, publicly available under www. securepart.eu.

SecurePART Action Plan for strengthening the links between civil society organizations and security reseach
http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html

A set of 4 videos with recommendations for CSO, Project Coordinators, NCPs and European Commission
http://www.securepart.eu/en/gallery.html

Recommendations to CSOs:
- Get informed about the four areas of security research and identify possible common ground with your activities. Consider the potential benefits of participation opportunities in order to fulfil own goals as well as spread good practice further afield
- Use online and live consultations to give feedback to the European security (research) agenda about concerns and aspects from your work on the ground (stage I, II)
- Organise your interests with regard to security-relevant research by forming new or becoming members of existing European advocacy networks which can interact with the European institutions and communicate your interests (stage I, II)
- As a project partner, ensure that you are not merely a passive distributor of results, or an advisor, but you get the chance to exercise an a) early, and b) strong influence on the research questions too (stage III)
- Build up your reputation as a competent and reliable project partner by professionalizing your research structures, and by employing the appropriate staff (stage III)
- Provide a “reality check” to security research: Since you are in direct contact with citizens or other CSOs, you are best equipped to point to potential non-intended negative consequences of research, but also act as a translator and multiplier in order to enhance their positive impact (stage IV, V)

Recommendations to potential Coordinator (RTOs, SMEs, Universities)s:
- As potential coordinators of SR actions you are important facilitators for CSO participation. If you invite CSOs to join early on as partners in the proposal formulation process, and give them a substantial role in the consortium, you may increase the robustness, acceptability, and usability of the project’s results (stage III)
- Make sure that you reach out to civil society actors (either in your external expert board, or in your workshops and events) throughout the project for feedback and critique, in order to reflect on potential benefits and costs of your recommendations for the third sector in society (stage III)
- CSOs can help to pave the way for innovations in society by elucidating the non-technological conditions for innovation diffusion and uptake. Involving them in the application and implementation phase of projects can contribute to enhancing acceptability and acceptance of your research (stage IV)

Recommendations to National Contact Points:
- Inform and sensitize the delegates of your Member State in the “Secure Societies” Programme Committee about the potential of CSOs as beneficiaries and as ‘end-users’ in the ESRP with particular interests and strengths (stage I, II)
- Act as matchmaking hubs by using detailed registers of CSOs and their specific areas of activities in order to bring the right CSOs in contact with relevant calls and applicants’ consortiums (stage III)
- Raise awareness among CSOs about the ESRP, and facilitate their participation e.g. at general and dedicated Info-days about the ESRP calls (stage III)

To the European Commission / REA:
- (EC) Reach out to existing CSO networks, and, additionally, include CSOs in a dedicated Mobilisation and Mutual Learning (MML) platform, in order to create awareness of emerging challenges in the security research field, valorise existing results for security practitioners, and, not least, foster mutual commitment for the future security research programme (stage I, II, IV)
- (EC) Treat CSOs as a distinct interest/stakeholder/expert group and invite them to ad hoc and regular consultations. Allow for a wider stakeholder diversity in the ‘Protection and Security Advisory Group’ by accepting more CSOs and gain a better grasp of the dynamics of security technologies within societal context (stage I, II)
- (EC) Introduce the instrument of “Open Calls” by earmarking a part of the budget in each annual programme in order to receive bottom-up (unexpected) innovative ideas from the ground and enhance the reflexivity of the ESRP. The calls may take an ‘open contest’ character and invite problem- or solution-centred innovative proposals about institutional and organisational issues of security (stage II)
- (EC) Explore common denominators and issue joint calls on specific issues by bringing closer the research areas of “Secure Societies”, “Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies”, as well as the cross-cutting research area “Science with and for Society”. This will help to better connect technological with non-technological aspects of security in ‘cross-over’ topics which better simulate application in real circumstances.
- (EC) Promote particularly in the context of pilot/demonstration projects mandatory participation of CSOs as key innovation facilitators in project consortiums, since they are best sensors of the societal context and its enabling/constraining conditions for effectiveness, legitimacy, and acceptability of new security provision mechanisms (stage III, IV)
- (REA) Support CSOs by assisting with administrative hurdles, in order to foster equal participation chances also to small CSOs as project beneficiaries, which have a solid knowledge of security issues on the ground, but little experience in, or limited logistic capacities for research (stage III)
- (REA) In terms of evaluation and review of projects, engage more CSOs with practical experience as experts for the sake of a “reality check” in practice, and penalise one-sided participation in consortiums which neglect the third sector in society (stage V)
- (EC & REA) Elaborate and launch a joint CSO operational definition and start differentiating among CSO beneficiaries in the internal statistics (CORDA, SESAM) with regard to their participation modalities and their impact on the overall success of the project (stage V)
- (EC & REA) Establish success criteria and innovation indicators beyond financial auditing, which can better capture positive impacts beyond marketing uptake, and communicate success stories with CSO-involving projects (stage IV, V).

Potential Impact:
The impact generated from SecurePART is as per the expected impact defined in the call text for topic Topic SEC-2013.7.3-1 Increasing the engagement of civil society in security research:

General impact
The outcomes include an action plan which will help achieving a greater engagement with and involvement of civil society organisations and their advocates in EU security research in the future.

How SecurePART answers to this impact expected
Based on a comprehensive and fine grained study of CSOs’ needs and their current integration in EU security research, and a transfer of best practices from other fields of technology research, SecurePART developed evidence-based recommendations on how to achieve a higher engagement of civil society in EU security research. SecurePART developed concrete strategies for the integration of CSOs in the whole security research agenda setting process. As this will be accomplished by a close collaboration with actual CSOs and networks of CSOs, we will achieve not only an indirect and strategic, but also a direct impact on CSO engagement in security research.

Dissemination activities
SecurePART will continue to use the Project website, third party websites, security and research related events, ENNA Internal channels and partners’ internal channels like website and mailing lists to disseminate the project achievements by using the following dissemination tools already produced:
• Logo and stationery
• Brochure
• Poster
• Bookmark
• Powerpoint Presentation
• Policy Cycle Poster
• Roll up
• Final Action Plan
• Public Deliverables
• Policy Briefs
• Guide about “Why and how to participate in Horizon 2020 security research?”
• First period results publication
• Guide addressed to promoters of communication activities on security research and with CSOs in particular
• Videos
• Website
• Social Media
• Newsletters

Exploitation of results
The main goal of the Exploitation is to establish suitable actions to make SecurePART a successful and sustainable project. Generally, it is based on the communication and dissemination strategy elaborated by the SecurePART adopting the most appropriate dissemination tools and channels elaborated so far in order to exploit the results achieved during the project implementation.
The public deliverable D6.8 (http://www.securepart.eu/en/public-results.html) provides an overview of the designed dissemination materials to exploit the accomplished results and outlines the exploitable components.
More specifically, the objectives of this exploitation plan are:
• to establish and maintain mechanisms for effective exploitation
• to inform stakeholders of the project development and encourage interactions/ networking
• to coordinate all levels and types of exploitation of the knowledge produced by the project
• to ensure that information is shared with appropriate audiences on a timely basis and by the most effective means.

More information is available on:
• the project’s website: http://www.securepart.eu/
• the project’s BLOG: http://blog.securepart.eu
• the project’s LinkedIn group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=8127775
• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1-qLqAONMBJCmHMrf_CUSg/videos
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/SecurePart-Engagement-of-Civil-Society- Organizations-in-Security-Research/439565109555441
• Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/securepart

List of Websites:
As the website is a ‘front office’ for our project, the number of updates and level of information directly depends on the capacity of the project to create contents—an added value that can be shared with the visitors. Especially from the first year onwards, the project started to have results that can be uploaded to the website and shared with visitors. Additionally, the communication materials and work developed in WP4 is giving interesting documents to be made available via the website (video, guides, SecurePART characters, etc).
The activity in social networks, the event in Berlin and the communication actions are helping increase the number of people accessing the website - from July to September 2015 there was an increase of 67% in terms of visitors.

In terms of information, currently the SecurePART consortium published:
• 23 public results
• 26 events
• 12 Policy briefs
• 4 news
• 23 videos
• 8 Downloads (external documents)
• 6 Useful links

Since the launch of the new version we are monitoring the website with google analytics, below is an overview of the statistics since 14th of April 2015 until 30th of April 2016.

Sessions: 2945
New users: 1573
Page/Session: 2.68
Avg Session Duration: 00:02:27
Bounce rate: 60.70%
% New Sessions: 53.41%
New Visitor: 1573
Returning Visitor: 1372

Related information

Reported by

BANTEC CONSULTORES INICIATIVAS EMPRENDEDORAS SL
Spain

Subjects

Safety
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top