1. Rome, September 19 th 2013 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia EPOS PP Inter-Activity Preparatory Council

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNCIL Progress on technical work: ICT architecture & prototype of the e-RI Finalize Governance & Legal models: LoI, EoI, Statutes, EPOS Governance,.... Advance in implementing the EPOS Financial Plan: funding models & TCS involvement Respond to the AEG Report Face the ESFRI Evaluation Entering in the high priority list in 2015

3. Timeline and goals Preparatory Phase Phase 1: Implementation Phase 2: Construction & Operation 201420152019 Finalize the ICS design Present ICS prototype Identify existing TCS Start implementing TCS Hosting the ECO Procedures for hosting ICS Finalize EPOS financial plan Secure National funds for existing TCS Post- Prep phase? Finalise ERIC negociations Construction ICS central hub TCS implementation Existing TCS operational ERIC enters in force ECO operational ERIC-TCS Agreements Operate EPOS-ERIC Support TCS implementation EPOS fully operational Further TCS developed Third parties partnership agreements Interaction with private sector Elaborate EPOS financial plan Phase 2 EPOS-ERICEPOS financial plan 2015-2019

4. List of Voting Issues Does the IAPC approve to have separated financial plans for Phase 1 and Phase 2? Does the IAPC approve the presentation of the three funding scenarios by the PDB to the BGR? Or Does the IAPC wish to recommend one scenario to the BGR? In case the Moderately Integrated scenario is recommended: Does the IAPC recommend to use a flexible EPOS fund mechanism for TCS development? Does the IAPC recommend to the BGR to discuss the following two issues? Accepted types of in-kind contributions How to set value on in-kind contributions? Does the Council approve further development of the Governance Model? Does the Council authorize the PDB to begin the process of appointing the Ethical Board? Amendment to the Grant Agreement

5. Previously voted issues (Potsdam June 2013) The EPOS PP IAPC voted on the following two topics: 1.The EPOS PP IAPC approved the Letter of Intent 2.The EPOS PP IAPC approved the Deliverables completed at M30

6. Recommendations to BGR The EPOS PP IAPC makes to the EPOS BGR the following recommendations: 1.The EPOS PP IAPC recommends the draft of the Expression of Interest for starting the ECO hosting procedure 2.The EPOS PP IAPC recommends the proposed Governance Model architecture 3.The EPOS PP IAPC recommends the one member / one vote voting model in EPOS- ERIC General Assembly as the favorite one 4.The EPOS PP IAPC recommends the ICS architecture based on a central hub plus distributed resources 5.The EPOS PP IAPC endorses the legal WG for drafting the statute and by-laws

7. Indications to PDB for BGR The EPOS PP IAPC provides to the EPOS BGR the following indications: 1.The EPOS PP IAPC agrees to leave the Host Premium not specified 2.The EPOS PP IAPC agrees that EPOS-ERIC needs cash contribution (to be determined) 3.The EPOS PP IAPC recommends the EPOS Project Development Board to provide a list of possible types of in-kind contributions for ICS and TCS envisioned at this stage of the Preparatory Phase and to transmit them to the BGR for discussion. 4.The EPOS PP IAPC agrees to exclude the flat rate per country and to provide to BGR two examples relying on models for membership fees: GDP-based and mixed 5.The EPOS PP IAPC agrees on the proposed procedure for selecting ECO 6.The EPOS PP IAPC agrees on the evaluation procedure of proposals for hosting ECO

8. EPOS PP Assessment Expert Group 2013 Final Report (draft)

9. The objective of the AEG IN NOT to assess the scientific merits of the projects, but to evaluate the financial and managerial maturity ………. In its analysis the AEG addressed two issues: 1.evaluating the financial and managerial maturity identifying specific bottlenecks and making recommendations on how to best address 2.indicating the feasibility for implementation by 2015, required an extrapolation of the existing data to the probable situation likely to prevail in 2015 or afterwards and therefore to some extent a judgment of the project management ability and determination in implementing the AEG recommendations. General AEG statements 1/3c

10. The assessment was performed by developing an Assessment Matrix comprising six modules: 1.Cost and Financial structure 2.Governance and Legal structure 3.Human Resources and Project Management 4.Stakeholder Engagement and Financial Commitments 5.User Strategy 6.Risk Strategy The Assessment Matrix lists the milestones related to different stages of maturity, in the three phases of project preparation: 1.Preparatory 2.Approval 3.Implementation General AEG statements 2/3

11. For the purpose of the AEG Report, a research infrastructure is considered to be “mature” (i.e., ready for implementation) when it meets the following criteria: Cost and financial plan well defined, with adequate cost estimates Firm financial commitments for the relevant investments and operations Approved statutes and governance structure in place Existence of a credible project organisation, with clearly identified responsibilities and reporting lines Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established and staff planning outlined, including procurement considerations User Strategy well planned Risk Analysis included General AEG statements 3/3

12. It is essential that the proposers agree on the definition of the Thematic Core Services and start defining an activity plan, deliverables, an implementation schedule, a realistic budget and facility-wide key- performance indicators. There is a need to ensure that the bidding process for HQ and Thematic Core Services does not lead to exclusion of potential partner contributions (because of the proposed high host contribution). A clear Business Case and Investment Strategy should be developed. Structural funds should be also considered for this. Once the project documentation (business plan) is available, it is recommended that independent external scientific and technical reviews and an independent project cost review be undertaken. The reviews should also address the risk analysis. A positive result of such reviews is considered essential to show that a project implementation phase could be successful in cost, schedule, and performance. AEG Recommendations for EPOS 1/4

13. The large number of groups and institutions involved will need to show that they can cooperate in a sufficiently coherent manner and that a path towards a well-managed distributed research infrastructure is established with a clear role of the HQ, not only with regard to the various ICS, but also to the TCS. To achieve the latter, EPOS should aim for sufficiently specific service level agreements with the national research infrastructures in order to be able to guarantee quality and continuity of services. To engage the community and the financial stakeholders, it is very important to define a Delivery Strategy, indicating how the various partners could benefit from this research infrastructure. A gap analysis should be considered, also involving Mediterranean countries not currently fully involved. Recommendations 1/3Specific AEG Recommendations for EPOS 2/4

14. Truly integrating the EUR 350 million worth of national investments and obtaining the estimated EUR 3-9 million financial commitments for the ICS and TCS is an ambitious goal, requiring high-level government commitment to be achieved. EPOS should consider setting up a high level intergovernmental working group to organize the long term funding commitments. The Board of government representatives could be given that task, provided it is composed of sufficiently high- level mandated government officials. Although EPOS is planning to complete statutes in 2014, they should start working on them as soon as possible, since time is needed to reach consensus decisions. In the statutes, clear lines of responsibility between the various bodies should be defined. This should include clear procedures for the nomination and election of External Advisory Board. An Ethical Board should be considered and positioned in the future governance structures. AEG Recommendations for EPOS 3/4

15. Given the stated potential value of EPOS for industry, it is recommended to engage formally industry, for example by including representatives in the External Advisory Board. There is scope for promoting pilot cases for new EU leadership technologies in this domain using EPOS as platform, if suitable industrial partners are found. EPOS should explore collaboration with KM3NET and EMSO to define areas of potential synergy and overlap, in addition to the collaboration with SIOS with which a joint project already exists. AEG Recommendations for EPOS 4/4

16. EPOS brings together an impressive group of facilities and partners dealing with various aspects of the Earth system. EPOS aims to have the funding model and commitments, or an Investment Strategy, as well as the statutes ready by 2014. The drafting of statutes for an ERIC has only recently started. This means that the conditions for maturity are currently not fulfilled. In order start implementation by 2015, an acceleration of the process and involvement of governmental stakeholders at high level is necessary. The ambition to integrate fully EUR 350 million of national investments into EPOS could prove to be unachievable. The main financial uncertainty is the EUR 3-9 million per Thematic Core Service that should be committed. A more evolutionary model should perhaps be considered. However if the recommendations of the AEG are followed, which will involve substantial effort, then implementation by 2015 could be possible. AEG Conclusions for EPOS

17. COUNCIL DUTIES Council will vote on: – Appointment of the Ethical Board – Financial plans for phase 1 and phase 2 – Update of the Governance Model architecture – Amendment to GA Council recommends: – Funding scenarios – Cash contribution – In-kind contributions – Funding mechanisms for TCS developments Council requests support from BGR on: – Supporting EPOS intermediate phase after PP ends

18. Thank You for your attention

19. The project phases Three phases in the development of a research infrastructure A project needs to pass through a Preparatory Phase and an Approval Phase before moving to the Implementation Phase (including construction and operation) 1.The Preparatory Phase includes the Concept Screening Stage of the scientific proposal and a Feasibility Study Stage, in which the soundness of the scientific and technological concepts are tested. This is a critical phase, where the research infrastructure needs to show its merit in terms of its science mission, but also the feasibility and value-added. A first question in this phase is to identify the community of users and stakeholders as well as to undertake a gap analysis of the scientific landscape in terms of existing facilities (in international perspective), user potential and ability to move the scientific frontiers. This can help reducing fragmentation, enhance efficient use of resources and most of all helps the management to focus the science mission in a way to reach excellent and unique results at the lowest cost. At the end of the Preparatory Phase it is recommended that the projects have an independent external review to check that all requirements are met. Only after this initial review, a project should be considered ready to be included on the Roadmap. 2.The Approval Phase involves the development and demonstration of the financial support from the stakeholder community (Business Case Review Stage), explanation of the strategy and an action plan for the delivery of the project’s goals (Delivery Strategy Stage) and a careful preparation of the investment decisions (Investment Decision Stage). …… 3.The Implementation Phase requires that all conditions are in place to construct and operate the research infrastructure. A project ready for operation needs a well-structured and legally sound organisation, a clear policy for managing human resources, a competent project director and experts to manage the project’s contracts (procurement task force). …………..

20. Timeline Present to 20142015 20192020……………… AEG REPORT TERMINOLOGY