Extreme-Light-Infrastructure: Experience with a synergy funding model for Research Infrastructure projects ( ESFRI, FP7, structural and national funds.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Joint presentation by respective units in DGs AGRI, EMPL and REGIO IPA Components III, IV and V: Conditions for successful preparation and absorption of.
Advertisements

Evaluating administrative and institutional capacity building
FP7 Preparations ISTC meeting 31 March Content FP7 preparation approach and timetable Context for FP7 and for ICT in FP7 Research in New Financial.
November 2004 The Research Infrastructures in FP7 DG RTD – Directorate ‘Structuring ERA’
NMP-NCP meeting - Brussels, 27 Jan 2005 Towards FP 7: Preliminary principles and orientations… Nicholas Hartley European Commission DG Research DG Research.
1 RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES Synergy in using FP7 and SFs for the development of Research Infrastructures Warsaw, 13 February 2006 Hervé Pero, European Commission.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING AUTHORITIES AND THE PAYING AGENCIES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Felix Lozano, Head of.
ELI – the international dimension Wolfgang Sandner Director General and CEO ELI Delivery Consortium International Association Prague, 24 May 2013 Project.
The New EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation HORIZON 2020 Judit Fejes Executive Agency of Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME)
1 7th Framework Programme Specific Programme “Ideas” European Commission Directorate B November 2005.
Research and Innovation Research and Innovation Research and Innovation Research and Innovation Research Infrastructures and Horizon 2020 The EU Framework.
Regional Policy Managing Authorities of the ETC programmes Annual Meeting W Piskorz, Head of Unit Competence Centre Inclusive Growth, Urban and.
EU-Regional Policy and Cohesion Structural Funds and Accession 1 SPP BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITY Training seminar on evaluation Prague February.
A project implemented by the HTSPE consortium This project is funded by the European Union SUSTAINABLE GROWTH LIFE
Objective- and Strategic Analysis
Regional Policy EU Cohesion Policy 2014 – Regional Policy Why change? Cohesion Policy has been changing already for a long time! ✦ EU has been changing:
Contribution of the Territorial Cooperation Programmes to the EU Strategy for the Danube Region Kiril Geratliev, Director General “Territorial Cooperation.
EPOS Preparatory phase Torild van Eck (ORFEUS) Call INFRA Deadline: December 3, 2009 Funding: between 3 and 6 MEuro Duration: max 4 year.
ESPON Seminar 15 November 2006 in Espoo, Finland Review of the ESPON 2006 and lessons learned for the ESPON 2013 Programme Thiemo W. Eser, ESPON Managing.
Value for Money & Policy Review of Disability Services.
TEN-T Experts Briefing, March Annual Call Award Criteria.
1 Support for New Research Infrastructures in the EU 7 th Framework Programme for Research Elena Righi European Commission SKADS Workshop, Paris, 4 September.
“Thematic Priority 3” Draft Evaluation of IP + NoE.
ESTELA Summer Workshop, 26 June 2013 The EU-SOLARIS project.
Regional Policy EU Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020 Proposals from the European Commission.
Project supported by: ELI-DC and the future ELI-ERIC: structure, status, current plans and current unknowns Wolfgang Sandner Director General, ELI Delivery.
1 7th Framework Programme “Ideas” 2   Basic research has an important impact on economic performance   Europe is not making the most of its research.
E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o nCommunity Research Global Change and Ecosystems EU environmental research : Part B Policy objectives  Lisbon strategy.
Jacques Bus Head of Unit, DG INFSO-F5 “Security” European Commission FP7 launch in the New Member States Regional on-line conference 22 January 2007 Objective.
1 EUROPEAN FUNDS IN HALF-TIME NEW CHALLENGES Jack Engwegen Head of the Czech Unit European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy Prague,
TEN-T Executive Agency and Project Management Anna LIVIERATOU-TOLL TEN-T Executive Agency Senior Programme and Policy Coordinator European Economic and.
URBACT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORKS. URBACT in a nutshell  European Territorial Cooperation programme (ETC) co- financed by ERDF  All 28 Member States as.
Ministry of Finance Compliance assessment of the management and control systems of the managing authorities under the Operational programmes. Conclusions.
André Hoddevik, Project Director Enlargement of the PEPPOL-consortium 2009.
Launch event ICRI 2016, Cape Town - South Africa Launch event ICRI 2016 Cape Town South Africa David Bohmert Member ESFRI Executive Board Swiss ESFRI Delegate.
September 27th, 2016 Challenges Posed by Processing Scientific Data at Extreme Light Infrastructures Tamás Gaizer.
Annex III to BS/SC/PDF/A(2003)1
Future International Cooperation Perspectives of JPIS
Presenter: T. Gaizer (ELI-ALPS), co-authors: G. Beckett, J. Chudoba, M
European Commission “Intelligent Energy for Europe”
Accountability: an EU perspective
Evaluation : goals and principles
INEA Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
Sustainable EU Research Infrastructures
Macro-regional strategies Rapporteur: Etele Baráth Dr
Martin Müller InRoad Coordinator InRoad
Jean-Eric Paquet.
Simplification in ESI funds for
April 2011.
Workshop with the 8 PAF related Proposals & the Habitats Committee
Supporting Cities and Regions through Projects and Programmes
The role of the ECCP (1) The involvement of all relevant stakeholders – public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society bodies – at.
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
Thematic workshop 2 – Smart Energy Systems Brussels, 8 November 2013
A Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters
ECONOMICS IN THE WFD PROCESS
Preparation of Member States’ Strategic Reports 2009 European Commission seminar for managing and certifying authorities Brussels, 9 June 2009 John.
INNOVATION DEALS: A NEW APPROACH TO REGULATION
FINANCING NATURA 2000 Agenda item 2.1 CGBN Co-ordination Group
Commission proposal for a new LIFE Regulation CGBN meeting
ACTRIS – EMEP, THE WAY FORWARD
ESFRI ROADMAP Madrid, 12th March 2019 Gonzalo Arévalo Nieto
Assembly of Members – 12 March 2019
Biodiversity, Natura 2000 & Green Infrastructure in the Regional Policy Mathieu Fichter European Commission, DG Regio Team leader "sustainable.
Assembly of Members – 12 March 2019
Job de Kleuver NWO-I/APPEC
Experience of the implementation of FP6; preparations towards FP7
eContentplus 2007 Work Programme
Public procurement and Infrastructure implementation risk management
Presentation transcript:

Extreme-Light-Infrastructure: Experience with a synergy funding model for Research Infrastructure projects ( ESFRI, FP7, structural and national funds and Horizon 2020 contributions) Carlo Rizzuto ELI-DC AISBL Project supported by:

What and why a Research Infrastructure? A Research Infrastructure is a unique/rare set of facilities and instruments, built and managed for service to international researchers to allow the development of unique scientific projects. The users are attracted by its quality and selected solely on the quality of the proposed projects and bring the best ideas and strongest technical challenges. The instruments, staff and management of the Infrastructure are, then, fully exposed to international competition in science, technology, education and organization. This translates into technological and educational advances, connected to the local economical and social environment. For this reason the EU (Countries and Commission) have developed a European strategic approach including the use of structural funds in synergy with national and EU Framework Programme funding.

ELI at a glance ELI will be the world’s first international laser research infrastructure, pursuing unique science and research applications ELI will be implemented as a distributed research infrastructure based on 3 specialised and complementary facilities located in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania ELI is the first ESFRI project to be fully implemented in the newer EU Member States ELI is pioneering a funding model combining the use of structural funds with national and Framework programme contributions in an ERIC

Milestones towards implementation 2006: ELI selected as a strategic project for (ESFRI Roadmap) 2007: ELI-Preparatory Phase (13 EU countries, €6 M€ EC funding) Oct. 2009: decision to implement ELI as a unified distributed infrastructure / CZ, HU and RO to build the first 3 sites Apr. 2010: MoU between the host countries Dec. 2010: end of the ELI-PP 2011-2018: construction (820 M€ 15% national, 85% ESIF) 2015-2018: ELITRANS (3,4 M€) 2018 ++: operation

The agreement Competitiveness Council of November 20th 2009: “The Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania highlight the fact that this integrated proposal is the application of the principle of pooling national resources with structural funds, as well as the fact that this proposal reflects the ESFRI Roadmap into national and regional policy implementation. The integrated proposal on the implementation of ELI corresponds to the need to provide access to research infrastructures throughout Europe as well as to the need to develop Europe’s regions. The three Member States invite all Member States to participate in this endeavor, and to make the ELI project a truly European achievement”.

Characteristics and opportunities Structural funds Characteristics and opportunities Structural funds allocated at the national level through 3 separate processes and grant agreements Grant beneficiaries (ELI-Hu, IoP, IFIN- HH) individually responsible for the implementation of the 3 ELI facilities ESIF: objectives of socio-economic development for the hosting regions (besides RI objectives) Additional funding of Technology Transfer Key opportunities and benefits: Structurally interesting ESFRI funding model: opportunity for the development of RIs and scientific communities in new Member States Facilitated site decision and swift transition towards implementation, no initial delay due to multi-national ERIC negotiations

3 main challenges Institutional challenge How to keep the pan-European character and consistency of the project? What approach towards the future ELI-ERIC? Application challenge Challenges related to the content of the application Challenges related to the application process Management challenge How to deal with the strict time constraints applying to the use of structural funds? Review of main management issues connected to the use of structural funds. 1 2 3

Institutional challenge 1

1/ Institutional challenge Two layers of responsibilities and interests to protect and combine: Pan-European dimension and character of the project (ELI borne by international user community, future joint operation) Local/National Legal responsibility of the sites in the implementation + socio-economic benefits and scientific development of the hosting countries Political and administrative constraints: No synchronisation of operational programmes (OP) in the three countries Time needed to secure political commitment at highest level in the hosting countries Different administrative arrangements (OP under responsibility of Research Ministry or development agency)

1/ Institutional challenge Risk of a loss of larger international commitment during implementation Need for coordination between implementation teams to prepare joint and high-quality operation and ensure overall scientific coherence Need for preparation of ERIC set-up and attraction of Contributing Members in parallel with implementation Staged approach to ERIC: in ELI’s context, no possibility for ERIC to be in charge of implementation but need to take over immediately after closure of Preparatory Phase. An interim structure to address these challenges and risks: ELI Delivery Consortium AISBL founded on 11 Apr. 2013

ELI 1/ Institutional challenge ELI’s institutional roadmap Joint Initiation Parallel Implementation Joint Operation ELI-Beamlines ELI ESFRI ELI-PP ELI-ALPS ELI-NP 2006 2007 2010 2011 2013 2017 2018 ELI-DC AISBL PP Consortium MoU ELI- ERIC

1/ Institutional challenge ELI’s institutional roadmap Joint Initiation Parallel Implementation Joint Operation ~ 6 M€ Prep. Phase ~ 850 M€ total EU Structural Funds (CZ, RO, HU) ~ 3,4 M€ ELITRANS 70-80 M€ /a ELI-ERIC (pending) ERIC negotiations 2006 2007 2010 2011 2013 2017 2018 ELI-DC AISBL PP Consortium MoU ELI- ERIC

Application challenge 2

2/ Application challenge Scope and duration of the application process Thorough evaluation process at the national level (technical, environmental, legal, financial, organisational, management aspects) followed by evaluation by EC for “major” projects Lengthy procedure (22 months for ELI Beamlines between submission of national application to Managing Authority and signature of grant agreement) Evaluation period at EC level – in principle no longer than 3 months – delayed because of lack of coordination between DGs (situation improved since then) and some political difficulties Overall, positive attitude of DG Regio towards the project (during evaluation and after), very helpful support from DG Research.

2/ Application challenge Main challenges: Cost-Benefit Analysis: compulsory economic tool to demonstrate socio-economic relevance of the project: Choice of indicators, quantification and monetisation inherently subject to high level of uncertainty in the context of a RI project CBA more adapted to traditional investments where benefits are more easily appropriated by the hosting region No standard reference period for impact analysis of R&D project (specific guidelines developed by JASPERS) Compliance with competition rules: need for clearer guidelines on how to ensure project compliance and better understanding by DG Competition of the nature of RI projects Demonstration of financial sustainability: need for long-term financial perspectives and assurances in hosting countries to support operation

2/ Application challenge Conclusions / recommendations on application: Overall, application process is adapted to scale of projects, but possible adjustments to take into account RI specificities Heavy application process more adapted to mature projects (risk that application preparation prevails over project preparation and evolution) Pre-funding to support application preparation and team building before implementation is necessary Connection between Managing Authority and Ministry of Research / ESFRI delegates necessary (+ connection between RI roadmap and operational programme strategy) CBA useful to compare between projects and assess performance, but regional-based strategy for maximisation and appropriation of impact should be the main focus Need for more practical guidelines on compliance of RIs with competition rules (checklist?)

Management challenge 3

3/ Management challenge – Dealing with time constraints Phasing as an answer to the time constraints of structural funds: Strict time boundary to the funds’ eligibility creates potential risk of non-completion in case of delays RI projects – like ELI – involving challenging technological developments need sufficient time contingency and may extend over a single programming period “Phasing” the implementation over two programming periods is an appropriate answer to mitigate the risk of non-completion Conditions for phasing: Need for two distinct and physically identifiable phases Investment delivered by Phase 1 needs to be “ready for its use / purpose” (condition assessed in concreto) “Horizontal phasing” as an appropriate approach in the context of RIs like ELI.

3/ Management challenge – Procurement and financial aspects Stringent procurement rules increasing schedule risks: Low public procurement thresholds Monitoring of procurement process by Managing Authority makes process longer Exemption for procurement of R&D services and sole-supplier procedure not always applicable in practice. Financial management constraints Contingencies not explicitly allowed in budget Financial management not flexible: savings not necessarily recoverable and budget reallocation limited and subject to negotiation with Managing Authority. Complex audit and monitoring system Multiple and redundant audit layers Extremely detailed reporting system and progress monitoring

Conclusions and recommendations Key opportunity for a more balanced European Research Area and for the socio-economic and scientific development of less-advanced regions Need for institutional arrangements balancing national and pan-European responsibilities and interests (for distributed RIs) Better adaptation of application process to RI specificities would help maximise impact of projects using structural funds “Phasing” as a valid model to mitigate risks due to time limitation of eligibility (clarification of “readiness for use” still needed) Need for consistency in management and governance practices across EU programmes (eligibility of contingencies and consistent approach to performance, risk and progress monitoring). Very strong risk for the sustainability, lacking EU support to operation in a start-up phase!!!