Skip to main content

Coordination action in support of the implementation of a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change : a new challenge for Europe

Final Report Summary - JHEP (Coordination action in support of the implementation of a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change : a new challenge for Europe)

Executive Summary:
Europe’s cultural heritage is the world’s most diverse and rich patrimony attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historical city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible, intangible and digital forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
The JHEP project in support to the JPI on Cultural Heritage allowed Member States and Associated Countries to implement the Joint Programming for jointly providing areas where public research programmes can respond to major societal challenges.
An adequate management structure has implemented, with associated activities to both disseminate the objectives and initial achievements, and provide an evaluation framework for addressing its impact.
During the life of the JHEP project, a long-lasting co-operation and integration with European and not European Ministries and research institutions has been achieved, at the same time creating links with the main international organisation on Cultural Heritage.
JHEP has finally provided a Strategic Research Agenda built with a bottom up approach, which is a synthesis of scientific and institutional perspective on cultural heritage research activities at European level. The SRA topics are, in fact, closely related and efforts have been made to integrate the policy-related scientific findings, in a close dialogue with the relevant stakeholders.
Several research projects in the field of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage were funded with the two joint transnational calls and an Action Programme to implement the first 3 years of SRA was defined. The project has also contributed to reinforce the dialog with the policy community initiated within the Net Heritage project.

Project Context and Objectives:

Europe’s Cultural Heritage is the world’s most diverse and richest patrimony, attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, historic city centres, archaeological sites and museums.
Moreover, this heritage is an important component of individual and collective identity. In both its tangible and intangible forms, it contributes to the cohesion of the European Union and plays a fundamental role in European integration by creating relations among citizens.
Natural ageing apart, Europe’s Cultural Heritage is exposed to many threats such as climate change and pollution, increasing urbanisation, mass tourism, human negligence, vandalism and even terrorism. It is a fragile and non-renewable resource, much of which has been irretrievably lost over the last century.
Protection of Cultural Heritage in respect to global change is thus becoming a major concern for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe. Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard Cultural Heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt Europe's unique cultural patrimony.
In fact, coordination was required to overcome the fragmentation of initiatives deriving by diverse and sometimes potentially conflicting approaches (research – administration – management – exploitation), by the multiplicity and geographical dispersion of bodies and institutions involved with or in charge of Cultural Heritage, and by the different local environmental, social and economic conditions. If there was a field in which joint action was required, this is Cultural Heritage, for its global value in human history and identity.

The 2010 Commission Recommendation on the research joint programming initiative "Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe" encourages Member States and associated countries to "develop a common vision on how cooperation and coordination in the field of research at Union level can help to preserve Cultural Heritage in all its forms, ensuring its security and sustainable exploitation", "to develop a common strategic research agenda", " an implementation plan establishing priorities and timelines and specifying the action, instruments and resources required for its implementation" and " to set up a common management structure".
JHEP intended to structure and support the JPI, to develop a vision document and the Strategic Research Agenda, to implement the Action Programme for the area of research on Cultural Heritage in a changing world.
The main objectives of JHEP were:
✓ Providing necessary administrative and logistical support to the meetings of the Governing Board, Executive Board, Scientific Committee and Advisory Board required for the development and implementation of the SRA and Action Programme.
✓ Definition of strategic and scientific priorities to develop the Scientific Research Agenda (SRA)
✓ Implementation of joint and coordinated research activities
✓ Extension of the partnership, cooperation at global levels and with international and NG organizations,
✓ Evaluation and monitoring of the joint activities,
✓ Engagement of stakeholders through a communication plan to ensure the translation of research outputs into practice and policy.

The bottom-up nature of JPI on Cultural Heritage and of JHEP project as a consequence, was a challenging opportunity for programme owners and managers to underpin catalytic actions in support of RTD research applied to tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage.
JHEP project, in support the JPICH, has satisfied a demand that exists in the research community involved in the protection, management and valorisation of cultural heritage, for an instrument capable of combining the advantages offered by national programmes over their international equivalent (e.g. the greater familiarity of researchers with local administrative procedures and personnel) with the benefits peculiar to international programmes (e.g. access to broader pools of both complementary expertise and resources).
JHEP has promoted mutual learning and provided a route towards the greater spread of joint initiatives.

Project Results:
According to the four main step: Development Strategic Research Agenda, Implementation of Joint Programming Initiative, Extending the partnership and cooperation, Monitoring and Evaluating JPI the work performed and results are summarised below.

1) Development Strategic Research Agenda
One of the main documents produced in JHEP project was the Strategic Research Agenda. The SRA has been developed purposely with the aim to present cultural heritage as a holistic, integrated research area. Using the JPI-CH 2010 Vision document as a starting point, input was requested from a wide range of stakeholders across Europe reflecting the three key facets of cultural heritage: the tangible, intangible and digital. Every Member State participating in the JPI-CH set up a National Consultation Panel (NCP) of individual experts who did not represent any particular organization or discipline. Each Panel identified research areas, activities, gaps and needs across the key facets of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage. This input, supported by Foresight studies, further consultation and expert analysis, identified the priority research areas, future requirements and what will be needed to protect cultural heritage in all its forms in the 21st Century.
The SRA declares that different types of cultural heritage cannot be seen as separate entities. The tangible, intangible and digital facets are just as important as evidenced by the digitization of material, web technologies and the increasing amount of born digital material, which present numerous opportunities and challenges for cultural heritage research.
The SRA also recognizes the importance of values and how cultural heritage research should reflect values in society. These are addressed by encouraging researchers to ask the core questions of what is worth preserving and how to make choices.
The four priority research areas represent the research areas, gaps and needs identified as part of the consultation. These have been grouped into themes which reflect the broader issues of the cultural research landscape.
Developing a reflective society.
This is broadly based on recognition that the world is changing and that research questions, approaches, methods and reporting need to reflect this change.
Connecting people with heritage.
This concentrates on exploring access by addressing themes and issues that enable people and communities to connect with heritage, underpinned by sustainable management plans.
Creating knowledge.
This involves deepening our understanding of the context in which cultural heritage exists and is formed, and developing innovative approaches, applications and tools that will create added value for society from cultural heritage.
Safeguarding our cultural heritage resource.
This explores how we can protect our heritage and the research that is required to support protection.
In addition the National Contact Points identified a number of priorities that are superior in their influence over and above individual drivers. These overarching elements that are essential for the new research landscape to be successful include Capability and Capacity, Management Strategies, Knowledge Sharing and Research Infrastructure.
This SRA is just a starting point of a dynamic process that will lead to a continuous update of this agenda, the more it is cherished and shared the more it will contribute to the preservation and the enhancement of heritage in Europe through relevant and effective research. Future joint activities could help the JPICH participants to implement this trajectory.

2) Implementation of Joint Programming Initiative
Within this step three main activities were been carried out:
✓ Launch, evaluation and funding of the first pilot joint call
✓ Launch of the second call
✓ Definition of the Action Programme

The main information regarding number of Participating Countries, Eligible Partners, Call process, Time schedule, Call budget and Funding schema are summarized in the Table provided in the Attached 1.

The calls remarks could be summarized in order to have a better performance during the launch of the joint transnational calls on the basis of the experience of the first pilot and second call launched during the JHEP project:
✓ Topic of the Call - it is necessary to better define their contents and clarify that proposals can address more than one topic, in the case of several.
✓ Eligibility and evaluation - Eligibility rules for the administrative checking have to be clarified better, in order to avoid the presentation of non-valid proposals for the scientific evaluation step. Furthermore, the applicants will be informed that if one of any of the groups is not eligible, then the project as a whole is not considered eligible.
✓ More information generally could have been provided on the eligibility rules for each country, with a link to the more detailed eligibility criteria.

The Action Programme is a concise document which has the aim to support the Members States and Associated partners to planning tools and priorities for the SRA implementation in the next 3 years. The most important action identified in the Action Programme is the alignment via specific actions and responsible partners over the period 2016-2018 that will be the main focus of the JPI’s ambition for the period 2016-2018. In the AP alignment is addressed starting by the Strategic Research Agenda, followed by the its implementation via calls and upcoming calls on joint activities. The Action Programme include a background chapter and a table shows the enabling elements of the SRA, linked with stakeholders, concrete and specific actions and responsible partners..

3) Extending the partnership and cooperation
Different directions and levels of collaboration outside the JPICH have been explored in this step including other European countries/initiatives, other countries outside Europe, and International and Non Governmental organizations. The aim of these activities was to boost the excellence of ERA on Cultural Heritage research and to strengthen its implementation at European level, enhancing Europe’s competitiveness.
Four important Concept papers have been defined for deepen the different approach that could be useful pursue in relation to the different stakeholders.

• Concept Paper for creating synergies between Cultural Heritage JPI Partnership and the rest of Europe
• Creating synergies with Cultural Heritage JPI Partnership and advanced economies USA, Japan, together with Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and neighbouring Mediterranean countries
• Concept Paper for creating synergies through collaboration with NGOs and IGOs
• Concept Paper Conclusions for future Cultural Heritage Research Policy Making
In particular after the launch on February 2010 the Countries which joined the JPICH in the period 2011-2013 were Denmark (2011), Norway (2011) Sweden (2011), Moldavia (2013) and Austria (2015). The JPICH represents a substantial enlargement with respect to the Era Net Project NET HERITAGE, from which the JPICH was promoted. The European network on Research applied to the Protection of Tangible Cultural Heritage NET-HERITAGE (2008-2011), which has been the first significant initiative set out to coordinate national RTD programmes of European countries, and support European programmes in research applied to the protection of tangible cultural heritage (NET HERITAGE website: included 14 EU MS and AC.
Most of the JPICH Participants were actively programming joint research as proved by the launch of the first JPI PILOT CALL last January 2013 on the research applied on tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage, which represented the commitment of 13 EU Participating Countries to implement transnational research programme. (JPICH website:; JPI JHEP pilot call website ( In addition the JPICH Partnership launched a second call within the HERITAGE PLUS Project, which intended to pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national programmes and the European Community and launched a single Joint Call for Proposals for research projects in the cultural heritage field that has been evaluated and managed jointly by the participating programmes.
However, some strategic remarks need to be planned to continuous the enlargement activities at European level such as:
- Favouring common activities with the JPICH Observer Countries, such as agreement for researchers mobility which will be included in the Action Programme;
- Using the Heritage Portal as a tool for favouring a bottom up approach to the JPICH also from EU Countries not participating to the JPICH;
- Exploiting through the international institutions represented in the JPICH Advisory Board the activities performed in joint programming in the field of cultural heritage.

Regarding the enlargement and cooperation with countries beyond Europe an analysis was carried out. The main results, reported in the concept paper, have shown that there is a real willingness and enthusiasm to participate and share information. However, looking to the SRA priorities, there were two areas high on everyone’s agenda - connecting people with heritage and the protection of heritage. This sharing of priorities means there is potential for collaboration and participation and further work is needed and engagement with non-JPI partners should be an on-going process. Some activities could be:
1. developing a strategy to engage the broader international heritage community, including exploratory work to understand the structures etc of countries.
2. Heritage Portal promoted internationally to reach a more global audience.
3. Roles on advisory groups, task force, peer review could include non-JPI countries and non-European countries.
4. Include participants in distribution lists, information about the SRA and on the Heritage Portal.
5. Need to be cautious about applying a European model to international cooperation.
6. Consider other models of engagement. One suggestion is to explore how digital technologies could be used to stimulate the exchange of ideas and experience across countries.
7. Agreement across partners at the workshop on the Strategic Research Agenda priorities – the priorities, therefore, could be useful as a framework for the JPI partnership, either collectively or individually, to engage with those countries.
Another important goal of Joint programming initiative on Cultural Heritage (JPI-CH) will be to extend the network with non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations (NGOs and IGOs). The concept paper in fact have identified a lot of synergies by developing joint activities.

Some conclusion for future Cultural Heritage Research Policy Making, Programming and Funding together with Joint Actions both at European and global level are reported in the last concept paper that could be summarized. Some additional actions are needed to reinforce and expand the initially established contacts:
- Creating a stable Task Force within the JPI dedicated to maintain and enhance the initial contacts, and to monitor the developments in this direction. This Task Force could propose specific activities to be included in the Action Programme incorporating initiatives of common interest from partners and external actors.
- Establishing a scheduled program of periodic actions to assure a stable flow of information and collaboration with the other interested external actors.
- Participating in already established and recognized events organized by other organizations, relevant in the field of cultural heritage research: ICOM or IIC conferences, ICCROM forums, etc.
- Organizing isolated and sporadic JPI events might have a restricted impact, since the capability of attracting other external actors has been demonstrated to be limited. One way to increase its impact is to establish a JPI conference/meeting as a periodic event (for instance, triennially) turning it into a fixed reference for external actors, as it is the case of any other international relevant events.
- Promoting the diffusion of research projects funded by the different calls of the JPI, assuring a relevant visibility of the JPI. Specific rules for dissemination of JPI funded projects may be established (including JPI logo in all presentations, specific mention to “JPI-Cultural Heritage” –not only the specific call- in acknowledgments, etc.).
- Heritage Portal has been identified as a useful tool

4) Monitoring and Evaluating JPI
In order to facilitate JPICH results assessment JPICH intervention logic has been decomposed following a Logical Framework Analysis and divided into five levels of performance: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. In this way, the newly-formed monitoring and evaluation framework will allow, in the future, to answer certain key evaluation questions concerning all cycles of coordination.
Regarding this step, indicators allow us to know when we have achieved our desired objectives, and to measure the gap, which separates us from these, expected achievements, were defined. They answer the questions: How will we know success and achievement when we see it? and Are we moving in the right direction? These indicators may be quantitative or qualitative and reflect every step of the logical framework.
During the lifetime of the JHEP project, the methodological framework was implemented and an evaluation of activities performed so far by the JPICH in order to feed back the JPICH with ideas to improve the initiative as it evolves. A list of ideas to improve JPICH activities efficiency and effectiveness was developed, also for objective to facilitate the definition of priorities and joint actions in the upcoming years:
1. Efforts should be sustained for the upcoming years, to include at least one nonERA state in JPICH Members or observer States. While extending JPICH partnership and cooperation, collaborations have been conducted between the JPICH and BRICs, Advanced Economies and neighbouring Mediterranean countries. However, only ERA countries are represented in JPICH Members States and observers. Now that JPICH enhanced the excellence of Cultural Heritage research and strengthen its implementation at European level, the priority is to raise the impact of JPICH at global level.
2. Define a common strategy for engagement with Policy makers and influencers at national level. With regard to the communication and dissemination strategy – and in particular the engagement with the group of stakeholders “Policy makers and influencers” – it appears that majority of these contacts have been conducted by Member States without a common frame to engage with this specific group. This could be a useful objective for the upcoming years, in order to monitor progresses and keep an up to date list of stakeholders for the JPICH.
3. JPICH should fix as a priority in the coming years to put more emphasis on collaborations and joint actions with Industry, SMEs and Civil Society..
4. JPICH will have now for objective to transcend the stage of informal collaborations. In general manner, through its extending activities and its communication and dissemination strategy, the JPICH has been developing many collaborations. Except activities required by the JHEP DoW, many of these collaborations remained informal. It follows that, using these rich contacts already established, JPICH has to transform these collaborations into real joint actions organised under its umbrella and with more visibility.
5. Define a clear strategy to optimise and continue important progresses achieved at the academic and educational levels. With regard to the effects of the JPICH on the academic and educational levels, indicators show that this is where the JPICH could certainly have the most important impact within a very short period of time. An important objective in the next Action Programmes will be to develop more actions in that direction for the upcoming years.
6. Find an agreement among JPICH participants on a maximum of 5 databases on which they estimate that JPICH activities could have an important impact in the coming years. Digitization and improved accessibility of materials and data are important challenges tackled by the JPICH. However, indicators show that few joint actions and projects developed in the frame of the JPICH address these challenges, while these are fields on which JPICH activities could easily maximize their impact: as an example, this could be done by contributing, upgrading or creating databases.
7. Agree on key fields of study on which integration level of Cultural Heritage knowledge developed through JPICH activities could be significant and easily observed.
There is also a need for benchmark in the academic and educational field, in order to measure more effectively JPICH activities impact in this field. More mapping activities by JPICH Member States are needed. More generally, there is a need for benchmark to facilitate assessment of JPICH progresses. Either for helping the JPICH positioning itself on the European Cultural Heritage financial landscape, or to compare JPICH productivity to the publications in the Cultural Heritage field, frameworks and benchmarks have to be defined and information already mapped through the previous ERANETs has to be updated. This can be done through continuous mapping activities by JPICH Member States but the European Commission can also play a vital role, as EC is often in best position to provide such data.
8. Develop and consolidate even further JPICH mechanisms to reduce fragmentation and unnecessary duplications in existing or new programmes.

Potential Impact:
JHEP- JPICH has continued and further improved the long-lasting co-operation and integration of European research institutions, which have taken part in the previous NET HERITAGE project and has also created links with the other relevant Joint Programming Initiatives.
With this project, and in particular with the launch of the two joint transnational calls, JHEP-JPICH has produced a big impact in terms of:
• Allow all the JPICH participating countries to work together in a concrete way and to measure them self with real problems in the cooperation among different countries, different rules, etc.
• Favour enlargement of the cultural heritage research community
• Integrate different research areas on cultural heritage (tangible, intangible and digital) to work together and to achieve a integrated approach within an international framework
• Foster the cultural heritage research community favouring a multidisciplinary scientific approach and the number of transnational projects

In addition JHEP/JPICH project has produced an indirect effects in terms of economic, environmental and social impact thought the funded project .

Economic impact
• 20% of the partners in the 10 projects awarded by the Pilot Call for Proposals are SMEs (SanMarco – Terreal Italia; C.R.S.A. MEDINGEGNERIA; Restauri Speciali; DIASEN; Altravia s.r.l.; GeoImaging Ltd; 3D Target srl; ARCHA srl; XGLab; LNG sa; Atelier de restoration Taillefert; Elab Scientific S.R.L.)
• 50% of the funded projects in the first pilot call foresee patent applications, license agreements, invention disclosures, studies underway, technology demonstrators, new specific frameworks and methodologies dedicated to Cultural Heritage conservation.
• 142 are the publications planned by projects financed through the Pilot Call

In general, as there is no precise data to quantify EU research funding in the domain of Cultural Heritage, common research funding coordinated through the JPICH are difficult to quantify, except those coordinated through the two call for proposals and the coordination action JHEP.
In the GPC Biennial Report for JPI Self-Assessment one question was: “indicate the estimated total annual public investment by ERA countries which is related to the Societal Challenge addressed by the JPI). Also give the estimated share of this total which is invested by countries which are Member of the JPI”.
We can answer that “Due to the transversal nature of the research topics and the societal challenges addressed by the JPICH, it appears complicated to limit its scope to one or two of the following socioeconomic objectives” [...] “if we choose the socioeconomic objective – Culture, recreation, religion and mass media”, Member Countries in the JPI represented almost 60% of EU 27 R&D appropriations (without Moldavia) in 2012. If we take all the socioeconomic objectives, in 2012, Member Countries in the JPI represented 68% of EU 27 total R&D appropriations (without Moldavia)”.
Up to now we don’t have information about the Number of transversal jobs directly or indirectly created through JPICH activities and their sustainability.

Environmental impact
• 50% of the funded projects are addressing tangible heritage and renewal and restoration of historic areas.
• 60% of these projects are addressing and investigating the issue of climate change

In general we can say that JHEP project has strengthened the position of Europe as an international leader in cultural heritage research, able to steer research agendas through its involvement in major international programmes and capable of reinforcing European policy-making. This is certainly an important step forward to the creation of the European Research Area in the field of cultural heritage.
Now at European level there is a Strategic Research Agenda on cultural heritage built and shared by 18 Cultural and Research Ministries and Research Agencies that will be the pillar to build all the new research activities and countries policy on cultural heritage theme.

Political impact
In addition to that the Council conclusions on participatory governance of cultural heritage (14953/1/14 CULT 123 TOUR 19 REGIO 121 RELEX 883) report in bullet 6:
“the adoption of a locally rooted and people-centred approach to cultural heritage in several EU programmes, including in the research programme Horizon 2020 and the community-led local development approach supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds. This approach is also recognized by the Joint Programming Initiative Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe”

Dissemination and Communication
Regarding the step of Communication and Dissemination activities carried out by the JHEP project Consortium over the life of the project audience dates for both the Heritage Portal and the JPICH website are very positive, and the social media campaign linked to the Heritage Portal is gaining good momentum. Heritage Portal members have increased significantly, from 183 to 1039 and we are seeing increased interaction by members with content on the site.
A number of key areas have been identified where we would like to see improvement in Heritage Portal audience behaviour: increased use of the mobile version of the site, increased referrals from other websites, and a broader range of search terms. The online presence of the JPICH, assessed via Google search outcome, is effective. The JPICH website appears first in a simple keyword search, followed by the Heritage Portal – this indicates that both sites are well optimised for online search, and that the Heritage Portal’s content and SEO link it effectively to the JPICH project. The remaining search results are a variety of European and National agencies involved in Cultural Heritage Research – again, well within the expected parameters for the search terms used.
Consortium members are engaged in a broad range of activities aimed at promoting the JPICH – from attending events, to issuing press releases and developing key contacts with relevant stakeholder groups.
Key findings from the online survey of communications and dissemination activities by project partners during the reporting period indicate that:
• Day-to-day communications activities are generally good; however there are some simple tasks where immediate gains could be made for little effort,
• Engagement with the Heritage Portal and Social Media are generally good, but again there are some simple tasks where immediate gains could be made for little effort.
• Engagement with each of the four stakeholder groups varies, but activities involving Policy Makers and Influencers and The Cultural Heritage Research Community featuring particularly strongly. Engagement with Parallel Projects and Organisations and with Industry, SMEs and Civil Society could perhaps be improved.

Five main conferences were organized:
1) International Conference on Joint Programming (JPC 2013), Dublin, 28 Feb – 01 March 2013.
JHEP project took responsibility for organizing Parallel Session 1 on the topic of Stakeholder Engagement; JPICH represented; JPICH promotional material disseminated; Workshop including JPICH attendees and Irish CH representatives organized, again on topic of Stakeholder Engagement

2) COLLABORATE: Cultural Heritage Research in Focus, Dublin, 29-30 October 2014
▪ Featuring the ten Joint Pilot Call projects
▪ Approx. 70 attendees.
▪ Speakers from all ten Pilot Call projects.
▪ Audience very much involved in discussion.
▪ Advertised on Heritage Portal, Eventbrite, social media and via targeted emailing to relevant stakeholder groups.
▪ Video footage and presentations made available on Heritage Portal and social media channels.
▪ Projects would be in favour of a follow-up conference once results are available.

3) Workshop for engagement of NGOs and IGOs (in collaboration with WP4), Amersfoort, NL 10-11 April 2013
• Workshop favorably received by all attendees.
• Steps put in place for continued collaboration.

4) Mediterranean Countries, London, 8-9 July 2013
• Workshop favorably received by all attendees.
• Steps put in place for continued collaboration.

5) JHEP Closing Event, Rome, 18 March 2015, (in collaboration with WP1, Coordinator)
o Featuring presentations of the Action Programme and SRA
o Keynote lecture by Prof. Jukka Jokilehto of ICCROM (JPICH Advisory Board)
o Approx. 30 attendees.
o Audience discussion.
o Advertised on Heritage Portal, social media, and via targeted emailing to relevant stakeholders.
o Video footage and presentations made available on Heritage Portal and social media channels.
6) International Conference “Heritage Commons: Towards a participative heritage governance in the third millennium” organized in Turin on the 23 – 24 September 2014 by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activity and Tourism within the EU Italian Semester, the JPI Cultural Heritage implementation has been presented.

List of Websites:


Arch. Antonia Pasqua Recchia
Ministero per i beni, le attività culturali ed il turismo
Via Collegio Romano27 101
Roma, Italy
tel. +39 06.67232002