Review Meeting

Final Review Meeting - Minutes 19-01-2012

Date and time: 19th January 2012, 09:30 to 12:30 hrs. Participants: For the REA.S.2: Paola CHIARINI (PCI, recorder of the minutes); For ESA: Alexi GLOVER (AG, external reviewer); For SOTERIA: Giovanni LAPENTA (GL, coordinator), KU Leuven; Myriam WITVROUW (MW), KU Leuven

AGENDA 1) Opening and introduction 2) Presentation of the project progress per WP, including main achievements 3) Review of the critical aspects, if any 4) Discussion between the REA project officer and the reviewer at closed doors, if necessary 5) Further points of discussion and review of actions 6) Conclusions and end of meeting

1. OPENING AND INTRODUCTION PCI welcomed the participants. It was agreed that MW would meet separately with the REA project financial officer to discuss the corrections required to the section Use of the resources and the Form C's submitted on-line. No original signed versions were received yet. It was noted that AG had no access to the Periodic Report, but only to the Final Report. It was agreed that further exchange of comments will be carried out by email and phone after the meeting.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF EACH WP GL presented the main achievements of the project and stated that all deliverables were submitted. a. WP 2 - Photosphere GL commented that one of the main achievements was the new collaboration established among the research organisations involved in the work package. AG summarised that the WP progress included hardware update, more regular frequency of the data produced and easier access. She asked how the SOTERIA database extends the database from the MDI mission archive, and whether it makes an additional contribution beyond what was available. => Action 1: GL to provide details on how the SOTERIA database extends the database from the MDI mission archive (in periodic report). GL pointed out that part of the research carried out in this WP will continue in the FP7-funded project e-Heros. AG queried what the evolution of the sunspot indexes is intended to be. => Action 2: GL to explain how the group intends to take that forward and produce a reference index (in periodic report). b. WP 3 – Cromosphere and corona AG pointed out that in the report is sometimes difficult to understand where the project made an actual contribution to mission databases. It would have been helpful if it was mentioned which products would not have been possible without the project funding. => Action 3: GL to clarify the project actual contribution (in final report). PCI noted that currently many databases, websites, etc. developed in the frame of SOTERIA are hosted and accessible only through different sources without a single access. GL confirmed that a list is available from the SOTERIA website (tab space weather tools) and access is included in the virtual observatory SODA. c. WP 4 – Heliosphere and terrestrial effects AG inquired on the impact of the recalculation of Dst, following the development of the Dcx index by SOTERIA. => Action 4: GL to explain the impact of the recalculation of Dst (in periodic report). AG asked to elaborate on the Task 4.2's study on environmental effects on spacecraft, mentioned in the final report. She also commented that from the report the contribution provided by the study is unclear. Is there any published results? => Action 5: GL to clarify (in final report) d. WP 5 - Irradiance GL commented that there will be further development done in e-Heros. There was a discussion on the CME initiation challenge. Research on this will be carried out in the project SWIFF. e. WP 6 – Distribution of data and dissemination GL confirmed that the website domain was paid for additional 3 years, but the webpages will not be updated. Services will be maintained by the single partners. At a question of AG, GL confirmed that the services had been validated and the validation process was included in a deliverable. The partnership is considering publishing a paper on this. What is the advantage for a user to access data through SODA instead of SOTERIA? The virtual observatory SODA was set up because no other appropriate tool was available; the HELIO one was created only afterwards. SODA, and also VSO, will converge in HELIO, although the FP7 coordination activity CASSIS is not working well. SOTERIA had over 100 publications. Papers which could not be peer-reviewed were published in a document repository in the Space weather portal. GL explained that the SOTERIA work will continue mainly in the project e-Heros, whose partnership include approximately of the SOTERIA partners, and partly in the project COMESEP.

3. REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS PCI pointed out that the project's publications have to be listed in the page "Publications" in SESAM. => Action 6: Publications to be listed in SESAM. Management: GL confirmed that there had not been any management issue in the third year. Dissemination: PCI pointed out that management and dissemination activities were mixed up in the periodic report (section 2.3). However, this is mainly due to the fact that the two types of activities are not split in the original Description of Work. Since the information is provided, no correction is requested in the periodic report. Regarding section 4 – Use of the resources of the periodic report, PCI recalled that comments and requested explanations were sent directly by email on 13/01/2012. Corrections and explanations will have to be included directly in SESAM. Longer explanations provided by partners can be sent by email. The following points were discussed: - KU Leuven: description of travels and distinction between management and dissemination (OTHER) costs; - KO and SRC-PAS: high number of person-months to be explained. PCI reminded that in case of an audit each beneficiary will have to be able to demonstrate the person-months charged to the project. => Action 7: Correct section Use of the resources. The possibility of presenting the SOTERIA achievements to the large public was discussed. PCI asked GL to provide a brief text, if the project wishes to be flagged as a success story.

4. DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE REA PROJECT OFFICER AND THE REVIEWER AT CLOSED DOORS, IF NECESSARY Since all issues were discussed, a closed door session was considered not necessary.

5. FURTHER POINTS TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW OF ACTIONS It was agreed that all points had been discussed.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND END OF MEETING The following planning of the next steps was agreed: - After the meeting PCI will reject the reports to allow the coordinator to revise them. - GL to submit revised reports by 03/02/12 (please insert page numbers). - AG to provide comments on deliverables by 10/02/12 (email sent directly to GL with PCI in copy). - Completed exchange of information by 02/03/12.

PCI thanked the participants and concluded the meeting.

COMMENTS FROM EC Financial officer

PMOD-WRC - Please split the costs of the 2 computers from the travels. Please confirm that the depreciation rules have been applied.

KO - KO claims 142.91 person-months. Please check that this is not a mistake and if it is correct, please explain (here below, not in the Resources table) such a high effort.

CNRS - Personnel costs: please include position of Mr Vieira and Mr Lilesten. - Please explain what is meant by "preparation" of European Space Weather Week.

Université Grenoble - Personnel costs: please include position of Mr Dudok de Wit and Kretzschmar.

ROB - Personnel costs: please include position of Mr Lefevre and Callebaut. - Travel costs: please explain purpose of participation in the Sunspot Meeting in El Paso and the participation of 4 people.

SRC-PAS - Personnel costs: please check that the claim of nearly 50 person-months is correct and explain such an effort much higher than most of the other partners. - Please explain which software licence.

MTA-KFKI-RMKI - Please explain purpose of visit of Mr Verigin and other Russian guests.

UOULU - The publication costs are Dissemination, thus the beneficiary could claim the related cost under Other/Other direct costs. This correction is optional and left to the decision of the beneficiary. If corrected, a new form C may be required (I have not checked the Form C); please inform me in case the beneficiary wishes to make the correction so that we can check and reject the form C in Force.

UGOE - Personnel costs: please include position of person. A general comment regarding the claims on Travels: the participation in conferences to present the project falls under Dissemination, therefore the beneficiaries could claim the related costs under Other/Other direct costs (funded 100% vs 75% of RTD). This correction is optional and left to the decision of each beneficiary. If corrected, a new form C is required; please inform me in case any beneficiary wishes to make the correction so that we can reject the form C in Force.

Additional comments and questions may come from the financial officer once that he will assess the Form C's.