1. Presented by Gavin Craik for OCG#57, 22 nd September 2015 © ETSI 2015. All rights reserved Doc: OCG(15)057_072 Source: ETSI Secretariat Agenda item: 8.3 For: Discussion/Information EC/EFTA FINANCING – UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RULES A guide to Lump Sum financing & effective proposal preparation

2. EC/EFTA funding – new rules EC/EFTA can co-fund actions but it depends on what and then how Action grants for “standardisation” actions – i.e. to result in ETSI deliverables (TR upwards (can include GS but is rare)) Action grants for other actions “not resulting in formal deliverables” – e.g. visibility/awareness/promotion/support/events/Plugtests ETSI has a Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) which sets the financial, contractual and management rules (amended as of 6 th August 2015) For standardisation actions, the funding is by lump sum For other actions, the funding is by eligible costs (direct costs) “In-kind” contribution is no longer required 5% of co-funding is typically made by EFTA, but if EFTA do not then we (ETSI) must find 5% ourselves. ETSI/OCG(15)057_072 2

3. EC/EFTA financing of standardisation actions Lump sum financing to be used for all standardisation actions resulting in ETSI deliverables Why? Article 15 of the Standardisation Regulation (1025/2012) Amendment to Commission Decision C(2014)1892 of 5/6/2015 Lump sum issue was an unexpected addition to article 15 of 1025/2012 (EC and ESOs). Resulted in amendment to FPA in August. What is the ETSI lump sum? Lump sum = Number of days necessary to implement the action x ETSI unit cost. ETSI unit cost is equal to EUR 626 (based on “real costs” of manpower and travel in action grants closed since 2007). Costs in ETSI action grants will now be based on units required to perform the work. 3 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

4. Any positives? Can now submit proposals again! Standardisation actions simpler to manage with some additional benefits Still develop proposals with man-days and travels as the main basis for STF proposals but recall that unit includes travels. No longer need in-kind contribution to co-fund As long as EFTA co-funds 5% then EC will finance the remaining 95% - if EFTA refuses then we (ETSI) need to find a 5% financial contribution Administratively better because no longer need cost control strategy and EC acceptance is on their acceptance of the delivered work ETSI still needs to have strong resource usage records and management but audit requirements are slightly less stringent Subcontracting and other costs are not part of the lump sum Proposals need to be more strongly defined on why, what and how the actions are to be performed. Lump sum may offer greater flexibility but should not change the overall sum to be used. Other actions will still have real costs and full audits (e.g. Events) 4 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

5. Important for those wanting to submit proposals TBs need to plan effectively if they want EC funding Proposals can be made at any time and the EC must reply Y/N within 2 months. The earlier a proposal is made, the stronger the chance of approval because the EC always seek to spend their budget line as quickly as they can – they too have targets to meet! Late proposals are more likely to be rejected or carried over to following budgetary year which may be less and also EC public policy priorities may change year on year. Proposals must meet public policy requirements or the answer will be “no” Standardisation requests – high priority. Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation – determines if they can fund under their ICT budget line (2,5 MEUR for 2015 and likely to be the same in 2016). Annual Union Work Programme (UWP) – for 2016 to arrive soon. 5 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

6. EC Public Policy – main references TBs need to be aware of the main baseline documents and the need to comment on drafts/new versions Standardisation Requests (ex-mandates). Need to comment on drafts and to try to have them updated to include the interests of members/ TBs. If you don’t ask/comment/propose then you won’t get anything. Annual UWP – this document contains existing and expected activities responding to requests and possible new requests to come in the next 12-18 months. This is valuable for non-ICT areas in particular – e.g. wireless comms/radio, satellite, aeronautical, maritime, transport, others – all market access, support of legislation/regulation, etc. EC’s Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation – if what our TBs want to do cannot be linked to this then kiss goodbye to EC funding. Hence it is vital they have the latest versions on your portal pages/meetings as permanent docs & you are encouraged to contribute to new versions. Poor record in last 2 years. 6 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

7. Proposals to the EC Things to remember Drafting a proposal for the EC is different to that for a short ToRs for ETSI funding. Use the correct template and be ready to emphasise how the proposal will meet/support the public policy chosen. The number of days necessary to implement the action will be the estimated number of units set out in the proposal, as it will be assessed and approved on a case-by-case basis by the EC evaluation committee. Provide detailed justification of the estimated number of days required. Provide detailed travel planning – EU, and if required, international – justify why Commission will regularly monitor the number of days performed by experts to verify unit cost (lump sum). 7 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

8. Basics for the proposals The proposal template is basically the same as before but the different clauses need some extra attention Need to emphasise how the proposal will meet the standardisation request/public policy/domain claimed. Objective should be concise but very clear on what is to be produced and what it will achieve. Needs to have very detailed description of what will be delivered and be clear in how this will be done and what it will entail (clauses 5 and 7). This is to justify resource estimate and duration of action. Performance indicators must have targets (achievable) – clause 6 Required expertise needs to be well defined – 3 bullets or needs to know ETSI procedures/drafting rules = not enough Required travels need to be stated – especially number and justification if any are to be international. Fail on any of the above and the evaluation is likely to be negative. 8 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

9. The procedure is still not quick Action Grants for signature will not be achieved over night and it is positive if you have supportive EC contacts (speeds up evaluation) Proposals generally need to go via the OCG (2 weeks) & Board (2 weeks) before they can be submitted to the EC/EFTA. EC evaluation – if this goes to plan it should take up to 2 months. Experience says longer. May still have to adapt proposals to reply to evaluation panel comments. Achieve this then a signed quotation is sent. EC drafts action grant but achieving financial commitment can be lengthy. Signature by ETSI DG and EC/DG GROW – work only starts after signature 6 months = quickest turnaround, often longer Actions can be funded for 30 months plus - good if covering large actions 9 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

10. Structure of Proposals (1 of 3) Part I = Policy relevance and expected market impact and is made up of 4 clauses Policy relevance – public policy being supported/assisted by the action needs to be justified – standardisation request, legislation, policy document – including ICT RP/AUWP. Be as specific as possible but not OTT Rationale – Why the action(s) is/are needed to meet the policies to be supported in the policy relevance clause plus other benefits. Objective – concise description of the what the action will result in and why. Market impact – how the results will assist the development of the market concerned, etc. Also a place to describe what may be the outcome if the action is not performed. Often the sections seem to merge/repeat but here make use of TOs and OPS/ECR to assist you 10 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

11. Structure of Proposals (2 of 3) Part II – Execution of the work – 3 main clauses Working method/approach – generally this is an STF. Outline expected duration (in months), the size of the team, expected qualifications/experience needed – be complete. How work is to be steered/managed, who is to be consulted in terms of liaison, etc. Vital to deal with stakeholder identification (especially annex III organisations). Performance indicators – this needs thought and definite targets with proposed results that are measurable (and how to be measured). Failure here can stop a proposal in its tracks – don’t ignore this. Work plan, milestones and deliverables – strongly describe what will be done, how it will be done and on what timescale/schedule, travels, dissemination work – strong description justifying manpower. Define deliverables/work items with scopes and schedules. Consultation = very important – especially to ensure Annex III orgs and societal stakeholders are included. Ensure the planning is clearly structured with a timetable for delivery of Interim and Final Reports with published items. 11 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

12. Structure of Proposals (3 of 3) Part III – Financial part TBs need to provide estimate of the number of units they estimate will be needed for the tasks outlined in clause 7 of the proposal. Absolutely vital this is done (includes travels). Travels to be carried out need now to be in clause 7 – planned and defined – STF attendance at TB/WG meetings (normally STF Leader reporting), meetings with other bodies – EU and international (if required and always justified). If not defined then may find it impossible to carry out. Also stakeholder meetings/dissemination activity needs to be well defined and planned. Failure to bring stakeholders in can fail a proposal – not here just to include ETSI members or one market segment. Other resources such as subcontracting, equipment costs, consumables must be provided here with justifications. Consult with OPS/ECR and Technical Officers as needed. 12 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072

13. Any Questions? 13 Thank You Gavin Craik OPS/EC Relations gavin.craik@etsi.org Tel: +33 (0)4 92 94 42 14 /+33 (0)6 72 95 05 94 ETSI/OCG(15)057_072