Selection procedure for the first Call for Experts (CfE no.1/2016)
The Knowledge Coordination Body with the support of the EKLIPSE secretariat was responsible for the selection process for the first Call for Experts (CfE no.1/2016). Eight members of the KCB were in the selection committee. The selection process was organized in three rounds over a 2 week period.
For the first round, the 117 applications were divided alphabetically into three groups and allocated to members of the selection committee.
Each member was asked to grade their 39 allocated applications based on the selection criteria (see below). The grading was as follow:
- Strong candidate on all/many criteria;
- Good candidate, bringing good potential on an underrepresented criteria (e.g. geographical balance, discipline);
- Unsure, probably better in reserve or involved in a wider group of consultees;
- No relevant expertise;
A total of 30 top short-listed candidates were identified based on the first round selection process (i.e. overall average grade ≤ 2). According to the call for expertise, we were planning on selecting 10-12 candidates.
In the second round, the criteria for the composition of the expert working group were further discussed in a tele-conference attended by seven members of the selection committee. In addition, balance in the group (in terms of gender, geography, discipline…)amongthe top candidates wasdiscussed during the tele-conference: e.g. among the top 12 candidates, there were no economists, no health experts, limited expertise on climatology,too few experts from Eastern Europe due to the very limited number of applications overall received from Eastern Europe.
Following the second round of the selection process, a third round was initiated. Based on the overall scorestogether with the need to fill the gaps in qualification, the selection committee selected 15 candidates as they all receiveda minimum of three votes from the members of the selection committee.
Please follow this link to find out more about the selected expert working group.
A) Demonstrated topical expertise: obligatory for each individual expert
a. Expertise should be demonstrated for project participation, Work Package or project coordination, business engagement, membership of an expert group, or similar activities.
b. Expertise should cover one or more of the following topic areas: Nature based solutions, ecosystem services, urban planning, conceptual frameworks, resilience to climate change, co-benefits of natural solutions, impact or programme evaluation, integrating technology and nature, methods for knowledge synthesis…
c. Scientific experience: at least two papers published in the last five years, in the areas of climate adaptation and/or environmental/social/economic aspects of urban planning/development or regional planning or governance of natural resource use.
d. Technical/practical expertise: clear evidence of having worked directly in climate adaptation in urban environments or environmental/social/economic aspects of urban planning/development, in the context of European cities.
B) Other important criteria: to ensure good working ability of the expert group, all selected individuals should cover most of these characteristics:
e. Proven ability to work in international scientific and policy processes (e.g. Fluency in English, language skills)
f. Overview and insights into relevant projects and other activities
g. Experiences in inter- and transdisciplinary work on topics related to Nature-based solutions and/or in science-policy interface processes
h. Time that they can dedicate to the process
i. Support from their respective team/ students, etc.
C) Additional expertise required in the group: these must all be represented within the group, so each individual should ideally cover at least some of the following points:
j. Experience in one or more existing initiatives related to the topic: e.g. MAES Urban Pilot framing, ecosystem-based adaptation and relevant information on Climate Adaptation , natural water retention , green infrastructure , greening cities and other Commission based initiatives
k. Policy experience/expertise: working with policy makers, experience of specific policies, experience as policy maker, or similar
l. Expertise on impact evaluation and/or conceptual frameworks to guide research processes
m. Expertise on knowledge synthesis approaches
n. Experience in communicating, promoting and incorporating science or practical work into policy development processes
o. Experience in leadership of knowledge assessment processes.