long-term sustainability of research infrastructures...corresponding issues to be discussed with the...

1

Long-term sustainability of Research Infrastructures

Non-paper

Stakeholders Workshop of 25th November 2016

2

Table of Content

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3

2. CONDITIONS FOR RI'S SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................... 3

2.1. Ensuring scientific excellence ........................................................................... 3

2.2. Attracting and training the managers, operators and users of tomorrow .......... 5

2.3. Unlocking the Innovation potential of RI .......................................................... 6

2.4. Measuring socio-economic Impact .................................................................... 9

2.5. Exploiting better the data generated by the RI ................................................ 10

2.6. Upgrading and decommissioning of RI ........................................................... 11

2.7. Governance and funding of RI ........................................................................ 12

2.8. Structuring the International dimension of RI ................................................. 15

3

1. INTRODUCTION

A targeted consultation was launched in December 2015 to identify trends and possible

corresponding actions that could be developed with Member States and stakeholders at

regional, national and European level, to strengthen the long-term sustainability of

Research Infrastructures (RI). The consultation addressed 9 interrelated pre-conditions

underpinning the long-term sustainability of RI: scientific excellence, training and

access, innovation potential, interaction with industry, socioeconomic impact, data

management, upgrading and decommissioning, governance and funding models, as well

as international cooperation.

The results1 of the consultation on the long-term sustainability of RI confirmed the 9

interrelated pre-conditions identified and confirmed that scientific excellence was ranked

as the most relevant precondition for sustainability. It also highlighted the need for

strengthening the interaction between RI and industry, encouraging new sources of

funding, improving data management, raising the visibility of RI and their related

services as a way to ensure scientific excellence, increasing the attractiveness for users

including from industry and secure funding for the construction and operation phase.

The presentation of the initial findings of the consultation at the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap

launch event in Amsterdam was the first step towards the preparation and adoption of a

dedicated action plan, which was called upon in the conclusions of the Competitiveness

Council of 26 May 20162.

This document highlights for each of the pre-conditions the main findings and the

corresponding issues to be discussed with the stakeholders.

The dedicated Stakeholders workshop planned for 25th November will tackle the pre-

conditions of long-term sustainability of RI, such as innovation potential, data, skills,

governance & funding, international outreach of RIs. In order to focus the debate on

concrete solutions, this document also outlines a set of questions to frame the debate.

2. CONDITIONS FOR RI'S SUSTAINABILITY

2.1. Ensuring scientific excellence

The role of RI in the advancement of knowledge and technology and their full

exploitation is recognised as essential. By offering state of the art instruments and high

quality services to users from different countries, attracting new users and preparing the

next generation of researchers, RI have enabled the EU to obtain and maintain the

intended level of excellence of the scientific output. The evaluation of the RI programme

1 Full report available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/lts_report_062016_final.pdf

2 The Council "invites the Commission to prepare together with ESFRI and relevant stakeholders a

targeted action plan".

4

in FP73 acknowledged that R&D conducted in RI contributed in Europe’s leading-edge

science and technology in areas such as adaptive optics, novel photonics and robotics.

Ensuring scientific excellence will enable Europe to stay at the forefront of science and

remain competitive worldwide. This implies that Europe must on one side continue to

invest in RI and, on the other, needs to promote the knowledge transfer (also in terms of

best practices) amongst RI and facilitate the access to the RI themselves in order to allow

Europe to keep its young talents and attract the best researchers from abroad. The

Excellence-driven Access mode as defined by the Charter for Access to Research

Infrastructures4 will play a key role in supporting researchers' mobility in the EU.

Conditions for excellence include setting-up independent international external scientific

and technical evaluation committees, efficient operation, continuous maintenance and

regular upgrades to optimally serve the user communities.

The exchange of best practices amongst the RI should also be promoted in order to

enable interoperability between the RI e.g. in the domain of data management,

standardisation of procedures and instrumentation specifications definition.

RI, due to their nature, have the potential to support multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary

and trans-disciplinary research activities, necessary to address complex problems and

societal challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity and health. Bibliometric analysis

on publications by participants of RI projects supported in FP7 has shown in particular

the high potential for knowledge spill-over which occurs to other research communities.

This approach of stimulating multidisciplinary activities has to overcome the bottlenecks

of funding agencies segmentation per field, of compartmentalised (research) policy

makers and of scientific and technical 'silos' not integrated in a common interconnected

environment.

Outcome of the LTS consultation:

The LTS consultation highlighted the importance of independent peer review as a mean

to foster scientific excellence. Stable long-term funding is also raised as one of the main

drivers for keeping the RI at the forefront of science. In addition, respondents stressed the

need for the RI to maintain their attractiveness both as service providers and as

employers.

Proposed actions for discussion:

Encourage the setting-up of independent international scientific peer-reviews;

3 Evaluation of Pertinence and Impact of Research Infrastructure Activity in FP7 – EPIRIA, Final Report,

Technopolis group, ISBN number 978-92-79-38965-8 4 The excellence-driven Access mode is exclusively dependent on the scientific excellence, originality, quality and

technical and ethical feasibility of an application evaluated through peer review conducted by internal or external

experts. It enables users to get access to the best facilities, resources and services wherever located. This Access

mode enables collaborative research and technological development efforts across geographical and disciplinary

boundaries.

5

Promote the establishment of appropriate technical evaluation review and

management committees;

Improve monitoring and measuring scientific and technological outcomes produced

by using the RI or its data;

Ensure long term stable funding planning schemes for RI;

Promote excellence driven access to RI; in that context, the Charter for Access to RI

should be widely disseminated amongst the scientific communities and RI;

Stimulate multidisciplinary approaches, in particular, to address societal challenges.

2.2. Attracting and training the managers, operators and users of tomorrow

The availability of competent managers and technical staff running the RI is a critical

need, which has been widely acknowledged and is directly connected on one side to the

existence of dedicated training programmes able to provide the staff with the necessary

knowledge and skills and, on the other to the attractiveness of the RI as a prospective

employer.

A number of activities have been set in place at European and International level to

tackle these challenges; nevertheless they still remain as stand-alone one-off initiatives,

which require a further degree of structuring and integration.

The transnational mobility of skilled managers and operators of RI is currently limited in

the EU. The attractiveness of European RI as employers of highly qualified staff is

closely related to their capacity to offer competitive working conditions as well as for the

European RI system to guarantee stable and secure career paths for staff moving around

the different facilities.

A number of initiatives have been launched such as for instance the proposal aimed at

setting-up a scheme facilitating the transfer of personnel and knowledge between RI both

at the national level and between EU Member States5. These initiatives would however

need to be reviewed carefully together with other employment conditions that affect the

attractiveness of RI.

The ability of the researchers to effectively use and fully exploit the instrumentation

available at the RI itself depends also heavily on the appropriate training and

development strategies, which determines their overall excellence.

5 EIROforum response to the ERA Framework Consultation, 29 November 2011, additional information available at

http://www.eiroforum.org/downloads/201111_mobility_proposal.pdf

http://www.eiroforum.org/downloads/201111_mobility_proposal.pdf

6


The LTS consultation acknowledged the need for developing managerial skills but did

not associate this with the requirement for harmonised accredited curricula. However,

respondents highlighted the benefits of exchange programmes for managers between RI.

The development of RI user skills & outreach was considered a relevant measure and

associated this need to the presence of specific training for RI users, including industry

users.

Different measures for increasing RI attractiveness as employer were put forward - most

of them related to working conditions' improvement and career perspectives.

Proposed questions to be addressed during the workshop:

What are the gaps in the RI staff/manager training?

How to establish a centralised coordinated training system tailored for RI

managers and operators?

What should a staff exchange programme address in order to encourage the

mobility of RI managers and operators? What are the best practices?

How could cross-border mentoring and tutoring of RI managers and operators be

encouraged?

How can RIs broaden their user communities?

How to make the RI a more attractive place for managers and scientists in terms of

training, career path, salaries, pension schemes, etc.?

2.3. Unlocking the Innovation potential of RI

RI main focus is to achieve excellence, nevertheless their potential to foster innovation6

is clearly recognised and should be fully explored. Opportunities provided by the

development of components, services and knowledge for the implementation and

upgrade of RIs should be better exploited to push the limits of existing technology. As

such, in the frame of the innovation cycle, industry can play the role both of potential

supplier (of the required technologies) and of user of the different RI.

Open science trends, which advocate for a rapid diffusion of the latest knowledge have

already created a shift in the current mind-set. A strong example of such a shift is the

construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which has

been signalled as where “new businesses and business models must be identified,

explored and undertaken”7.

6 Literature puts forward several approaches on the innovation effects that may arise from public investments in RI,

Simmonds (2013) highlights 6 broad classes of innovation effects "1) Use-led innovation, 2) Research-based

innovation, 3) knowledge spillovers, 4) Technology transfer, 5) clustering and agglomeration effects and 6)

systemic innovation." in Simmonds, P. et al (2013) "Big Science and Innovation", Technopolis 7 Chesbrough, Henry (2015)“From Open Science to Open Innovation”, ESADE

7

A co-innovation approach to continuously generate, scale and deploy breakthrough

technologies with market and social value could be used by RI to exploit their innovation

capacity. The use of the co-innovation paradigm, by identifying common synergies

between science and industry and by stimulating the products and services co-

development should lead to mutual benefit outcomes to both communities, accelerating

technology development to the market.

New initiatives, such as for instance ATTRACT8, currently discussed in the frame of

EIROforum, have the objective to foster the innovation potential of RI by laying down

the foundation for disruptive innovation in key critical technologies necessary for the

next generation of RI and deliver breakthrough technologies for global markets.

However, the innovation potential of RI is not only confined to their interaction with

industry. RI can also trigger the development of new business models, technology

integration and service provision to policy makers, which can be found in cases as

SHARE and EATRIS.

Also regions are important arenas for innovation with a valuable knowledge of the local

innovation ecosystem. Regional intermediaries and facilitators between academia and

industry such as clusters can play a role to ensure impact and integration of RI in the

local ecosystem.

Finally, innovation is also addressed through the use of RI by industry leading to the

development of more innovative and better products as demonstrated for instance in the

SERIES project9, which provided access to companies for testing sites leading to better

seismic resistance of buildings. The participation of industry as user of RI remain

however very limited – for instance only 3% of the access provided by the FP7

Integrating Activities projects is given to users from industry10

- and the barriers for

industry engagement such as rules for access including exploitation of the data, lack of

information are still not adequately addressed in many RI.

The global market for scientific instrumentation is large and rapidly expanding11

.

Development and operation of state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation is one of the

responsibilities of RIs and this requires substantial investments to cover not only the

implementation of new scientific instruments but also the development of the necessary

enabling technologies in close cooperation with industrial suppliers. It is however

essential to bridge the gap that exists between RI and industry in the field of R&D for

scientific instrumentation, to reduce investment risk and to create a win-win situation.

The design and co-design of instrumentation and equipment is one of the possible RI-

industry interactions which can create innovation and new economic opportunities, by

inspiring new technological solutions and new markets. Examples of these developments

8 ATTRACT was developed by CERN for the development of high-performance detector and imaging technologies,

additional information is available at http://www.attract-eu.org/ 9 More information is available at http://www.series.upatras.gr/ 10 Evaluation of pertinence and impact of the EU research infrastructure activity in FP7, final report, Technopolis, 2014 11 "The market in Europe for ‘big science’ RI is estimated to be worth upwards of €10 billion per annum, alone" -

EIROforum Position Paper on Scientific Instrumentation for the EU Framework Programme (Horizon 2020), 1

November 2012

http://www.attract-eu.org/

http://www.series.upatras.gr/

8

include the new generation of detectors, virtual astronomical observatories, protein

scanners, magnets, energy efficient computers.

The European Research Infrastructures Development Watch12

(ERID-Watch) study,

which was launched in 2006 and the follow-up study European Industry and Research

Infrastructure Interaction Support Study13

(EIRIISS) have assessed the efficiency and

market impact of research infrastructures in Europe and focussed on ways to maximise

the impact to research and industry from the opportunities presented by the

instrumentation development activity at European RIs.

EIRIISS revealed three areas where support is needed, the first of which focused on

increasing the visibility of opportunities for interactions between industry and RIs. The

second area called for improving on how funding support could focus on industries that

are more likely to engage with RIs and vice versa. The third targeted area concerned best

practices in procurement and knowledge transfer, involving networking of procurement

professionals and encouraging industry to interact more readily with RIs


The RI innovation potential is widely untapped since both RI and Industry do not fully

perceive the benefits of collaboration. This requires a change in the mind-set of the

communities involved in the innovation cycle (RI, Academia and Industry). The

responses highlight a need to attract industry both as supplier and as a user of RI through

more effective processes such as the co-innovation approach, which would enable to

maximise synergies between science and industry, address new markets, promote

commercial application of science and facilitate commercial exploitation of research

findings.


How can the Innovation potential of a RI be determined? How to support the

different innovations potentials/ impact of different RI?

How to increase the awareness and visibility of RI services to industrial users? and

to the wider innovation eco-system?

What kind of intermediary services could be established between RI and industry in

order to encourage knowledge and technology transfer? as well as to society

(authorities, regions)?

What should an exchange programme between RI and industry address to

overcome the cultural barriers preventing cooperation?

Which mechanisms work best to bring Industry & RIs in a joint technological

development?

12 European Research Infrastructures Development Watch (ERID Watch), FP6 project No 043004 13 European industrial and RI interaction and support study (EIRIISS), FP7 project No 284294

9

Which new initiatives could be launched to foster co-design & co-innovation /

demonstrators/ pilots for the development of key technologies/ services or support

to spin-offs?

Which measures could be taken to foster innovation through multidisciplinarity?

How to promote uptake and development of non-technical innovations?

How to establish a culture of ‘innovation’ for RI staff?

2.4. Measuring socio-economic Impact

RI have a direct impact on the economy through in particular the employment of work

force during their construction phase or the creation of new jobs and services for their

operation and maintenance, but also through their scientific missions, which can lead to

economic returns.

In developing new RI there is a requirement to plan for the societal outreach in order to

facilitate the acceptance and understanding of the added value of the RI and of its

activities.Several studies have been carried out to categorise the RI infrastructures costs

and benefits14

, to analyse the socio economic impact of RI15,16,17,18,19

and more

particularly the impact categories with discretionary outcomes, meaning those that,

unlike scientific results or direct impact on spending, will not be realised unless

managers/administrators positively desire them and allocate the required resources20

.

However, there is no standardised commonly accepted understanding of the impact

assessment of investment on RI. This would greatly facilitate funding decisions by

national, regional and local authorities21

.

The OECD is also addressing, in the frame of the activities conducted by the Global

Science Forum (GSF), the issue of RI long term sustainability with particular emphasis

on the socio economic impact of RI themselves.


The findings demonstrate the perceived relevance of direct and indirect, tangible and

intangible benefits deriving from the use of RI services and instruments.

14 Guide to Cost-benefit analysis of investment projects - Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020

(2014), European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban policy 15 Evaluating and Monitoring the Socio Economic Impact of Investment in Research Infrastructures, Technopolis,

2015. 16 Research Infrastructures Foresight and Impact (RIFI) FP7 project No 228293 17 Impacts of Large-Scale Research Facilities – A Socio-Economic Analysis, Research Policy Institute, Lund

University, August 2004 18 Evaluation of Research Infrastructures in Open innovation and research systems (EvaRIO), FP7 project No 262281 19 Cost/Benefit Analysis in the Research, Development and Innovation sector, http://www.eiburs.unimi.it/ 20 See CERN case study carried out by the OECD, The Impacts of Large Research Infrastructures on Economic

Innovation and on Society: Case Studies at CERN 21 To note that Elsevier announced already its intention to publish a special issue on “The social impact of Research

Infrastructures”, aiming to provide an overview of the methodological challenges and the potential application for

decision making of an evaluation framework for RI, in terms of the estimation and forecasting of their social and

technological impact.

http://www.eiburs.unimi.it/

10

However, the importance of assessing socio-economic impact of RI varies according to

the profile of the respondents. As such, funding organisations rank this dimension much

higher than the RI operators and the Research Performing Organisations.

Moreover, the acknowledgment of the need to measure impact has not yet resulted in a

systematic assessment and evaluation of such impacts throughout the life cycle of RI.


In coordination with relevant international bodies, promote the development of a

consolidated standardised model to identify the socio-economic impact of Research

Infrastructures, differentiated in function of the scientific domain and nature (single

sited , distributed, virtual) of the RIs.

Encourage the systematic assessment of socio economic impact (quantitative or

qualitative), throughout the life cycle of any RI.

2.5. Exploiting better the data generated by the RI

RIs are nowadays research data factories. With the increasing size of the generated data

sets, too large to be transferred, and the increasing complexity of data analysis, not

affordable by most of the research labs, RI are acquiring by necessity a more active role

in the data management domain.

In line with the Open Science concept, ensuring better availability, access and use of

research results and scientific data generated by RI including for non-research purposes

will be essential to improve research replicability and efficiency, strengthen innovation,

develop new activities and boost the productivity and competitiveness of the European

industry.

Questions concerning big data require a common approach and clear policy guidelines at

the EU and Member States level, in line with the Digital Single Market objectives and

the development of a European Open Science Cloud for Research.

Through the establishment of new pan-European research data infrastructures as for

example, the ESFRI projects ELIXIR, CLARIN, EMSO and CESSDA, common

European data policies can be defined for specific communities.

To address the era of extreme-scale systems (exascale databases and computing

machines), RI starting operation in the next decades will heavily rely on e-infrastructures,

i.e. high-speed connectivity, top-of-the-range computing infrastructures, data

management services and storage resources. e-Infrastructure services are currently

however too often developed as stand-alone systems by individual RI.

e-Infrastructure resources and services address several scientific domains and can be

more or less customized to meet specific community requirements. One of the most

relevant requirements is to bridge the gap between RI and the providers and operators of

e-infrastructures and associated basic services.

11

Addressing this challenge requires designing and prototyping new services to meet the

specific scientific needs of the communities that require top-of–the-range capacity in

networking, high-performance computing, software and data capacities. Such services,

due to their complexity, to the amount of data being produced and to the need to ensure

as appropriate, both the re-usability of produced data as well as the interoperability

between the services themselves, require to be developed in an integrated and

standardised manner. This will also imply an effort to integrate and open national

research infrastructures by means of 'physical' and 'virtual' access to the research

resources (instruments, network, computing and data), offering more than the sum of

individual components to fully harness the European added value.


Respondents highlighted the need for RI to take responsibility for the Data Management

dimension with specific reference to the data storage, curation, access and re-use aspects.

The requirement for a more integrated and interoperable approach to the data challenge

was also clearly highlighted, keeping into account, whenever necessary, the ethical,

privacy, security and copyright and IPR constraints.


Which role should RIs play for supporting the development of the European Cloud

Initiative?

How could ESFRI projects and ERICs and other RI of pan-European interest

contribute to structure the European Open Science Cloud?

Which mechanisms would facilitate the use and reuse of Research results &

scientific data in particular for non-research purposes & for public policy

definition?

How could we use data to break silos between scientific disciplines?

What should the RIs' data management policy cover to facilitate standardisation,

interoperability of services and improve research replicability, as well as securing

data?

How to account for the resources needed for the improved exploitation of the data

generated by the RI?

2.6. Upgrading and decommissioning of RI

The possible life evolution, including upgrading and/or decommissioning of RI is not

always addressed appropriately in the early development stages of the projects. This

phase of the RI life cycle can also cover the activities that need to be carried out when

changing the legal structure of the RI due to an evolving business model or an agreement

between members. The experience gained during this process, like for instance the

transition towards an ERIC, should be shared among RI. Moreover, there is a lack, in the

12

EU environment, of international accounting standards connected to management,

evaluation of the “fair-values” and recovery of “sunk-costs” when a RI needs a transition.

The decommissioning phase should also cover the issues of personnel and knowledge so

as to allow a smooth and efficient transfer of expertise and know-how to other new or

state-of-the-art RI projects requiring regular updates.


RI Life cycle – Upgrading

The responses demonstrate that RI tend to include upgrading as part of their life-cycle

management. Upgrading decisions are mostly based on a landscape analysis, which is

developed on a multi-level approach taking into account inputs from several stakeholders

such as users, scientific advisory boards, industry and funders. At the same time, most RI

do not consider international evaluation standards to be necessary in this context.

RI Life cycle – Decommissioning

The majority of the organisations do not include decommissioning in their lifecycle

management and business plan.

Among the RI that do plan the decommissioning phase, it appears that channelling the

know-how and transferring data are the dimensions that require closer attention.


• Reach a common definition at EU level on the lifecycle of RI;

• Introduce international evaluation and accounting standards as support to decision

makers, allowing choices/planning between different options (renewal versus

decommissioning);

• Establish guidelines on decommissioning of RI including provisions for channelling

expertise acquired data and research results and know-how from RI users and

operators towards other or new RI.

• Consider the wider RI landscaping before taking decisions on

development/upgrading/termination of an RI.

2.7. Governance and funding of RI

The ESFRI roadmaps22

have led to a certain convergence at European level and have also

triggered similar exercises in Member States and Associated Countries. However, the

different budget cycles and national RI policies still make joint investment decisions for

22 While the term “roadmap” is widely used for planning of RI in Europe, it is not universally applied to the results of

strategic long-term planning exercises, see OECD Global Science Forum, Report on Roadmapping of Large

Research Infrastructures (2008)

13

construction, operation and phasing out of pan-European RIs very difficult. The absence

of joint evaluation mechanisms at national/EU level is also a factor that needs to be taken

into account.

In the current institutional framework, the role of the Commission in the development of

a coherent European RI ecosystem so as to anticipate shortfalls, promote and safeguard

European interests is currently underexploited.

The ERIC Regulation was a response to the European political ambition of creating the

European Research Area to enable tackling current challenges (e.g. internationalisation

of research; achievement of critical mass; development of distributed facilities;

development of reference models).

Pan European RI established as ERIC have secured funding for their operation the

commitments of a core group of Member States and Associated Countries, but their

sustainability could be improved by broadening the participation to a larger group of

Member States and International partners.

The funding of distributed RI carrying out longitudinal studies such as the Survey of

Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe – European Research Infrastructure

Consortium (SHARE-ERIC), which rely on regular (small) contributions of numerous

funding organisations for their operation, is also an open issue. Such RI, while

contributing to EU policy making, currently lack specific EU support. More generally,

the use of those ERICs collecting and sharing data resources, such as data archives, is

currently not adequately promoted in particular to researchers benefiting from EU

support like Horizon 2020.

Pan European RI alone represent an investment of billions of euro (the estimated

construction of the 48 projects of the 2010 ESFRI roadmap alone were estimated at EUR

20 billion, with operation costs ranging from EUR 1.5 to 2 billion per year). RI have

therefore to rely upon a combination of public national (e.g. institutional), European (e.g.

Horizon 2020, ESIF), private (e.g. users, donors) funding for their construction and

operation.

The planning and financial engineering of the construction23

, the related national (road

mapping and budgetary) procedures, the identification of other funding instruments such

as ESIF and innovative financing instruments will be essential subjects that need to be

addressed and for which Commission and Member States should explore mechanisms to

enable the implementation of RI in a coordinated and efficient manner while respecting

the principles of subsidiarity. This reasoning could go beyond the traditional research

funding rationale fully acknowledging the long term character and enabling role of RI in

facilitating scientific research. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore how to

avoid having investment in pan-European RI negatively impacting on national debts.

The development of a credible business model becomes an imperative activity to be

conducted during the preparatory phase of the RI. Such business model would therefore

23 Cost control and management issues of global research infrastructures, Report of the European expert group on

cost control and management issues of global research infrastructures, October 2010, ISBN: 978-92-79-17390-5

14

have to take into account and appropriately describe the implementation, operation and

decommissioning phases of the life cycle of the RI.

Structural Funds support substantial investments in research and innovation. For less

research intensive Regions of the EU, substantial amounts of resources can be available

via the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). In order to exploit this

opportunity, it is important to reconcile the long-term competitive advantages resulting

from RI with the short-to-mid-term socio-economic advantages that qualify for the use of

ESIF.

The Report "Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds,

Horizon 2020 and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union

programmes"24

puts forward guidelines for policy-makers and implementing bodies to

promote and implement synergies between programmes and funds available. RIs are

natural candidates for these potential synergies, however in view of the more than 400

Operational Programmes and Management Authorities these synergies are still very

difficult to achieve.

The InnovFin25

instruments under Horizon 2020 and the newly created European Funds

for Strategic Investments (EFSI) can provide another potential source of funding for the

construction and operation of RI, as already tested at a smaller scale in FP7 with the Risk

Sharing Financing Facility (RSFF). However, the capacity of generating revenues by RI

is very limited and loans would typically be used for bridging a gap during the

construction to cover all construction costs so that the project can move forward or cash

flow management.


Ensuring sustainable governance of RI

The consultation highlighted a requirement to establish better synergies among national

roadmaps and to have these synchronised with the funding planning processes in the

Member States.

National processes would need to be inserted into a European strategy, reason for which

the European Commission should take a greater role in monitoring, supporting and

facilitating the whole exercise.

On the ERICs' further development, as it is still a relatively new legal instrument, there

appears to be a general view not to propose immediate changes as much as to continue

overseeing its implementation. Simultaneously, the respondents identified a number of

areas for further development of the instrument such as VAT exemption, extension of the

ERIC applicability to EURATOM, to international consortia and to research networks.

Funding the construction and operation of RI

24 "Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research,

innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes - Guidance for policy-makers and implementing

bodies" (2014) European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban policy 25 InnovFin "EU Finance for Innovators" instrument is a joint initiative of the EIB Group and the European

Commission under Horizon 2020. It builds on the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility developed under FP7, which for

the period 2007-2013 financed 114 projects of 11.3 bn EUR and provided loan guarantees for another 1.4 bn Euro.

More information available at http://www.eib.org/products/blending/innovfin/index.htm

15

The consultation indicated that there is a need to further stimulate the promotion of the

business models development, the encouragement of industrial investment for products

and services joint development and the fostering of new sources of funding. Among the

possible measures identified to overcome such situation are possible tax incentives for

(private) investment as well as a wider awareness/ promotion of RI services.


Which steps should be taken by MS/AC and the EC and regions to better align

regional, national and European roadmapping processes? What could be the role

of ESFRI in this context?

What role could the MS and the EC play in Pan European RI monitoring and

governance?

What measures should be taken to help RI improve their business planning?

What is the role of the EU and funding agencies in this respect?

How can MS ensure the development of balanced portfolios of RIs

(maintaining/funding the running of existing RIs vs investing in new RIs;

balancing out engagement in- and support to local, regional, national, pan-

European and global RIs)?

What measures should be taken to improve the combined use of different EU

funding mechanisms (FP, INNOVFIN, ESIF & EFSI) to better support the RI life

cycle and cash flow management?

How the EC could be involved in the ramp-up/commissioning phase of ERICs?

2.8. Structuring the International dimension of RI

The nature and complexity of the societal challenges require a global approach for the

design and operation of RI addressing them. Global cooperation is also the only option

when pooling of resources is necessary to match investment needed for construction and

operation of RI and where research has to be undertaken at a world wide scale and not for

an isolated region for example in the case of climate change or biodiversity.

Global cooperation on RI can also be used as a tool to support or complement the EU

external policy and contribute to Science Diplomacy26

as seen recently with SESAME or

in domains such as Arctic research. The potential strategic role of RI in the context of

Science Diplomacy is however currently under-exploited.

A number of fora have been set up in the international arena to deal with the RI

dimension. Amongst these the Group of Senior Officials (GSO) on global Research

Infrastructures and the activities on RI conducted by the Global Science Forum of the

OECD. These two groups attempt in a complementary manner to derive best practices in

policy dimensions such as access, impact assessment, legal framework, data management

26

New frontiers in science diplomacy, The Royal Society, January 2010

16

while at the same time setting the conditions for effective collaboration to be initiated

amongst the different countries and RI. The Commission, while being a member of these

international fora, does not have a complete overview of the international activities of the

European RI such as the ESFRI projects and the ERICs and does not have either a clear

mandate to represent these RI in international negotiations or dialogues.

As a consequence, the international outreach of RI is conducted mainly in a fragmented

way, within each project or following specific national interests, and the EU framework

conditions on issues such as access, data management, IPR are not systematically taken

into account when interacting with third countries.

The Big Data challenge is also relevant at international level since it requires greater

interoperability and harmonisation of services and standards between RI worldwide, and

has led to the establishment of dedicated international initiatives such as the Research

Data Alliance (RDA).


The LTS consultation highlighted that the international outreach of RI is only limitedly

addressed. Improving cooperation with strategic partners and stakeholders and promoting

its' visibility with an effective and multi-channel communication strategy are considered

the main measures to tackle the challenges posed by the need to better structure the

international dimension of RI.

Proposed questions to be addressed in the workshop:

What role should the MS and EC play in the international outreach of European

RI, in particular, regarding framework conditions such as access and data

policies?

Which mechanism should be put in place to ensure the coordination of MS in

developing global RIs?

What measures should be taken to ensure that pan-European RIs contribute to fill

the gaps of international landscaping?

Which activities could international fora, such as the GSO and GSF, implement to

develop global strategy on RIs and promote the outreach of Pan European RIs?

How can global agreements on RI usage and development be reached? What are

best practice models for global agreements?

long-term sustainability of research infrastructures...corresponding issues to be discussed with the...

Documents