DiSSCo Prepare Deliverable D4.3 - Report on recommendations for the most suitable model

DiSSCo related output This template collects the required metadata to reference the official Deliverables and Milestones of DiSSCo-related projects. More information on the mandatory and conditionally mandatory fields can be found in the supporting document 'Metadata for DiSSCo Knowledge base' that is shared among work package leads, and in Teamwork > Files. A short explanatory text is given for all metadata fields, thus allowing easy entry of the required information. If there are any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Title DPP WP4 D4.3, "Report on recommendations for the most suitable model". Author(s) Salomé Landel Gaël Lymer Markus Pasterk Michel Guiraud Katharine Worley Identifier of the author(s) Salomé Landel 0000-0001-5360-5693 Gaël Lymer 0000-0002-0836-2925 Markus Pasterk 0000-0002-6127-3323 Michel Guiraud 0000-0003-3125-8947 Katharine Worley 0000-0003-2377-6840 Affiliation Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris) Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (Brussels) X-Officio Contributors Natural History Museum (London) Naturalis Biodiversity Centre (Leiden) Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung (Frankfurt) Meise Botanic Garden Publisher Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris) Identifier of the publisher grid.410350.3 Resource ID Publication year 2023 Related identifiers https://know.dissco.eu/handle/item/504 https://know.dissco.eu/handle/item/511 DOI: 10.3897/rio.6.e54280 https://know.dissco.eu/handle/item/496 Relation type Deliverable Is it the first time you submit this outcome? Yes Creation date 05/01/2023 Version 1 Citation Landel, S. ; Lymer, G. ; Pasterk M. ; Worley, K ; Guiraud, M. (2023) Report on recommendations for the most suitable contribution model. WP4 - D4.3. Abstract Deliverable 4.3, a report on recommendations for the most suitable contribution model, aims to identify the main public sources of income for the DiSSCo RI: public funding being the bedrock of the ERIC structure. This report first explains the ERIC funding framework and its legal constraints. On that basis, it proposes rules and a mathematical formula to define the DiSSCo annual membership fees. The formula suggested is flexible and deliverable 4.3 provides a modelling of the results according to the different options available with the formula. In addition, it presents an analysis of the way funding could be distributed among its members in order to implement decentralized services. To fund a broader service offer, DiSSCo may need funding from other sources such as European and national funds. Eventually, ERICs like DiSSCo can apply for other funding, such as international organisation funding and sponsorship and foundations. This report delivers information on that additional funding. Content keywords financial Project reference DiSSCo Prepare (GA-871043) WP number WP4 Project output Deliverable Deliverable/milestone number D4.3 Dissemination level Public Rights License CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Resource type Text Format PDF Funding Programme H2020-INFRADEV-2019-2 Contact email [email protected] 1 36 Report on recommendations for the most suitable contribution model DiSSCo Prepare WP 4 – Deliverable 4.3 WP Leader: Michel Guiraud (MNHN) Authors: Salomé Landel (MNHN), Gaël Lymer (RBINS), Markus Pasterk (XOfficio), Katharine Worley (MNHN), Michel Guiraud (MNHN) Contributors: Eva Alonso, Dimitris Koureas (Naturalis), François Dusoulier (MNHN), Ana Casino (CETAF) Frederik Leliaert, Stefaan Pijls, Patricia Mergen (Meise Botanic Garden) Helen Hardy (Natural History Museum) 2 Deliverable references Deliverable D4.3: report on recommendations for the most suitable model Work Package WP4: Business Framework Lead Partner Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Status Draft Deliverable type Report Dissemination level Public Due date 6/01/2022 Submission date 6/01/2023 Grant Agreement number: 871043 — DiSSCo Prepare — H2020-INFRADEV-2018-2020 / H2020-INFRADEV-2019-2 3 Abstract Deliverable 4.3, a report on recommendations for the most suitable contribution model, aims to identify the main public sources of income for the DiSSCo RI: public funding being the bedrock of the ERIC structure. This report first explains the ERIC funding framework and its legal constraints. On that basis, it proposes rules and a mathematical formula to define the DiSSCo annual membership fees. The formula suggested is flexible and deliverable 4.3 provides a modelling of the results according to the different options available with the formula. In addition, it presents an analysis of the way funding could be distributed among its members in order to implement decentralized services. To fund a broader service offer, DiSSCo may need funding from other sources such as European and national funds. Eventually, ERICs like DiSSCo can apply for other funding, such as international organisation funding and sponsorship and foundations. This report delivers information on that additional funding. The DiSSCo ERIC annual membership fee calculation is based on three main indicators: economic power (GDP), annual spending in research and development, and population size. In the context of DiSSCo, these indicators are connected to a fixed baseline fee: 50,000 € in order to guarantee a minimum significant annual contribution from each participating country and avoid contributions that will be more expensive to manage than to benefit from. This baseline is multiplied by contribution factors which propose different ways to weight the different indicators. For instance, GDP could have a greater or lesser impact on the contribution calculation than R&D spending or population size, and so on. If, in the end, all 27 EU members plus United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland sign DiSSCo ERIC statutes then, based on this calculation, the annual budget would be 4.5 million euros – regardless of the weight allocated to the different factors. It is understood that probably not all the thirty-one countries listed will fund DiSSCo ERIC. The total amount may not be achieved initially. The first annual contributions will allow the Central Hub to begin its operation and implement its business strategy. Research Infrastructures like DiSSCo rely on diverse sources of funding, like EU funding, and can decide to charge services. In the long run, the Central Hub will also work to engage new members. DiSSCo research infrastructure (RI) impact and actions will evolve proportionally to the funding available. 4 KEY WORDS National contributions, ERIC statutes, membership fees, members, observers, inflation, GDP, GERD, population size, EU funding, alternative funding for ERICs 5 Abbreviations BBMRI: Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure CETAF: Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities, Brussels DG: Director General DiSSCo: Distributed System of Scientific Collections EC: European Commission ERA: European Research Area ERIC: European Research Infrastructure Consortium ESFRI: European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructure EU: European Union GA: General Assembly GDP: Gross Domestic Product GERD: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D GNP: Gross National Product HICP: Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices ICEDIG: Innovation and consolidation for large scale digitisation of natural heritage IO: International Organisation IT: Information Technology Meise BG: Agentschap Plantentuin Meise MNHN: Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris MoU: Memorandum of Understanding Naturalis: Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden NHM: National History Museum, London NN: National Node NSC: Natural Science Collections OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development RBINS: Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels RI: Research Infrastructure SGN: Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt SLA: Service Level Agreement SYNTHESYS+: Synthesys of Systematic Resources UN: United Nations 6 INDEX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC FUNDING MODEL FOR DISSCO RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE 8 1.1 MAIN QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE DELIVERABLE 4.3 8 1.2 METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED BY T4.3 TEAM: BIBLIOGRAPHY, BENCHMARK, WORKSHOPS AND INTERVIEWS 9 1.3 DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS AND CONCEPTS USED 9 CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE ERIC FRAMEWORK 11 2.1 A LEGAL CONSTRAINT: THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE CONSORTIUM (ERIC) 11 2.2 FINANCIAL RULES AN ERIC SHOULD FOLLOW 12 2.3 MAIN PATTERNS FOR THE RULES GOVERNING ERIC NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS 14 2.4 COMPARISON WITH DISSCO NEEDS AND OPTIONS 15 2.5. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISSCO NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP FEE CALCULATION 17 2.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ERIC CONTRIBUTION MODELS 20 CHAPTER 3: DISSCO NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS CALCULATION 22 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO DISSCO TIMELINE 22 3.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES AND RULES FOR DISSCO ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES 23 3.3 RELEVANT INDICATORS FOR DISSCO: ECONOMIC POWER, R&D SPENDING AND POPULATION SIZE 23 3.4 DISSCO ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP (DAM) FEE FORMULA 24 CHAPTER 4: MODELLING THE EFFECTS OF THE FLEXIBLE DISSCO NATIONAL CONTRIBUTION FORMULA 26 4.1 OPTION A: GDP AND GERD 27 4.2 OPTION B: GDP AND GERD/CAP 29 4.3 OPTION C: WITH GDP/CAP AND GERD 31 4.4 HYPOTHESIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO INFLATION 33 4.5 PROPOSAL OF TWO MOST BALANCED OPTIONS 35 CHAPTER 5: POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE DISSCO RI BUSINESS MODEL 37 5.1 DISSCO BUSINESS FRAMEWORK 37 5.2 INSPIRATION FROM OTHER RIS: A GROWTH MODEL 38 5.3 GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISSCO: SERVICE PROVISION AND INTEGRATION OF MEMBER INSTITUTIONS 39 7 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 44 APPENDIX 1: INTRODUCTION OF X-OFFICIO 45 APPENDIX 2: EXPLANATION OF THE MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTION 46 APPENDIX 3: DETAILED DATA FROM EUROSTAT 47 APPENDIX 4: INTRODUCTION TO EU FUNDING 48 INDEX: EU FUNDING 56 APPENDIX 5: OVERVIEW, EU FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISSCO 82 APPENDIX 6: ALTERNATIVE AND NON-EU FUNDING SOURCES 84 APPENDIX 7: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM D4.3 94 REFERENCES 99 14 2.3 Main patterns for the rules governing ERIC national contributions A benchmarking exercise was carried out in order to study the main variables which impact the national contribution models of 16 ERICs. For WP4 it was a way to identify the main rules to focus on in order to develop a contribution system for DiSSCo. This work was based on the EUR-Lex websites 6 , containing the official versions of ERICs statutes. The benchmark - a spreadsheet comprising two tabs - includes general information of 16 ERICs; links to their published statutes; domain; starting year; number of members and observers; hosting country; GDP (gross domestic product) per inhabitants of hosting country; OECD price level indices of 2019; number of members during preparatory phase; country of the coordinator during preparatory phase; host country contribution (with amount only for France); national cash contributions in 2019; R&D project volumes; income figures (only some identified); other income; host country cash contribution; host country in kind contribution; other in kind contribution; and total amount. The second tab provides information on the membership of the 16 ERICs, such as the type of membership contribution and the rules regulating it, financial figures, and data sources. Not all the ERICs studied have the same maturity, as they were created between 2011 and 2018. Nor are they all in the same scientific field as DiSSCo (environment). Some of them belong to social and cultural innovation, others to energy, some to health and food. According to the information collected, the minimum total amount of annual contribution is 220,000 euros per year, and the maximum is 2.2 million euros per year. This information was found via Internet searches, notably through annual reports that are publicly available on the ERIC page of the EC website. Considering that ERIC’s annual budgets reports are not always clear, specifically that their income categories do not make the same distinction between the different sources of income, this information might not be 100% accurate. 6 EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en According to this benchmark, the main rules that exist among ERICs statutes are:  A minimum and a maximum fixed annual membership fee;  A distinction made between members and observers;  A place given to International organisations;  Possibility to add a rule for variable funding;  A maximum threshold of contribution above which a single member-country cannot provide the equivalent on his own;  A fixed rule for Host premium contribution;  A distinction between in-kind and cash contributions;  A fixed rule to compensate inflation over time;  A minimum 5-years commitment;  Rule in case of early withdrawal;  Rule for non-member/observer users;  Rule for late contribution;  New member adjusted contributions;  Rules for non-EU countries;  Cost perimeter covered by the national contributions. 15 2.4 Comparison with DiSSCo needs and options This benchmark on the annual national contributions of Member Countries for 16 ERICs was reviewed by a subcontractor (X-Officio - see appendix 1) with more experience in ERICs. Based on their knowledge of DiSSCo and on national contribution systems for ERICs, they compiled advice for WP4 which has helped in the development of DiSSCo annual national contributions. According to their expertise, the following ERICs’ statutes contain components of interest for DiSSCo: BBMRI, EPOS, EUOPENSCREEN and LifeWatch ERIC. Still, there are components from other ERICs which are recommended to include, as shown in the following section. Table 1 - Overview: ERIC contribution model compatibility with DiSSCo National contributions rules - Compatibility with DiSSCo BBMRI Compatible CESSDA Not compatible DARIAH EATRIS ECCSEL ECRIN EMBRC EMSO EPOS ESS EU-OPENSCREEN EURO-Argo ICOS INSTRUCT LifeWatch SHARE BBMRI: this model could be used for DiSSCo as it provides both fixed and variable contributions. The variable share is based on the GDP of participating countries. Observer contribution is included (variable share is 30% for the GDP). There is a maximum of 25% for individual countries and international organisations pay a fixed amount, individually calculated, and fixed by the General Assembly. What is missing from these statutes is the host premium (for BBMRI it is in the internal rules document). CESSDA: the model does not contain a fixed share for all members, but fixed shares for two countries. The calculation method is not published. The other participating countries pay a share based on GDP, but again the mathematical formula is not provided. This case does not fit DiSSCO’s purpose as it reflects a very specific ERIC with two main partners and no calculation method is provided. DARIAH: their calculation model combines relative size of GDP (divided by the sum of the GDP of the Council of Europe member states) with cash and in-kind contributions. Details of the formula are not provided. Because of the calculation base and the lack of details provided, this model is not 16 recommended for use by DiSSCo. What is interesting is (1) an automatic increase of 2% per year of the national annual contribution to compensate for inflation, and (2) a monthly calculated fee for new members joining. EATRIS: this model consists of both a fixed, as well as a variable share. The fixed share also distinguishes based on population size (fewer or more than 7.5m people). The variable share is also a fixed amount distinguished by the amount of national R&D expenditure per country (5k for <4bn, 25k for 4-12bn, and 40k for >12bn). It is not clear how these thresholds are chosen and furthermore they are overruled by minimum and maximum overall thresholds of 50k to 140k Euros. Because of the lack of transparency of the chosen thresholds, in addition to the lack of inclusion of economic power (GDP) of a country, we cannot recommend this method for DiSSCo. What remains of interest, however, is a rule ensuring compensation in case of withdrawal of bigger countries (>7% of total contribution). ECCSEL: this model is not of use to DiSSCo as it contains a 1/3 share of the hosting country and equal amounts (not exceeding 80k) for participating countries - not distinguishing size, economic power, etc. ECRIN: the ECRIN model does not fulfil DiSSCo’s needs as it comprises contributions of individual contact persons in the countries, plus a fixed amount by GDP (20k for GDP<200 bn; 100k for GDP between 200-1000 bn; and 250k for GDP>1000 bn); but it includes the host country premium and a rule for joining national contributions to compensate for 50% of existing national contributions. EMBRC: annual contributions are calculated based on a mixed flat-rate/GDP-based/GDP per capitabased model with different weights and a published formula. The host country contribution is included. The formula used for this model is somewhat complicated, and the reasons why the different weights have been chosen are not clear. As a result, annual contributions will change year-on-year. We believe this should not be recommended for DiSSCo. EMSO: EMSO’s model is explained as having fixed amounts per member and hosting country, regardless of the size of the country, its economic capacity, or other components. Therefore, this model cannot be recommended for DiSSCo. EPOS: the statutes of EPOS ERIC contain a detailed formula on how to calculate the membership fee. The contribution is 50% equally fixed and 50% according to GDP contribution. The minimum contribution is 50k per annum. In principle this model could be recommended for DiSSCo, excluding the rule of voting rights in proportion to fees. ESS: the ESS contribution model is not of use to DiSSCo as it is set up as a fixed amount for the ERIC which is only adjusted for inflation. The individual contributions are then calculated based on GDP but with a minimum threshold of 20K. Interestingly, the host country premium is extremely high (about 1/3) of the total national contributions. EU-OPENSCREEN: this contribution model combines equal fixed amounts for all member countries (25%) and a variable share of 75% according to GDP per capita (different for member, observer, and host countries). The model includes a limit of 50% of total contributions maximum for an individual member. In principle a model like this would be useful for DiSSCo. EURO-Argo ERIC: due to a lack of detail in the statutes, it is not possible to evaluate this model. 17 ICOS: Alongside the headquarter (HQ), ICOS have institutions hosting additional services and measuring spots. 50% of the contribution is shared equally and 50% is GDP-based, with additional hosting components. Due to its nature, this model will not be of interest to DiSSCo. INSTRUCT: this RI has chosen to use a 3-block system based on the number of researchers in science and technology per total national population with cash contributions of 50k, 75k and 100k. Unfortunately, this model with general research staff does not reflect the relative manpower of a certain field. It also neglects to consider the overall economic power of a country. Therefore, this model is not recommended for DiSSCo. LifeWatch: Lifewatch ERIC has implemented a GDP-dependent linear based contribution model, with a minimum and maximum threshold. Unfortunately, the statutes do not show these thresholds in detail. This constitutes the simplest model for calculating mandatory annual contributions and therefore it is a possible model for DiSSCo. Interestingly, LifeWatch’s budgets are always fixed for 5 years. SHARE: much like ESS-ERIC, the SHARE contribution model is based on the principle that the host country covers HQ resources, and the member contribution covers the national surveys. This is a very different model to what is envisaged for DiSSCo, and is therefore not recommended. 2.5. Main recommendations for DiSSCo national membership fee calculation There is no classic model which ERICs can copy and paste or which all countries have agreed on. Therefore, each ERIC needs to develop its own specific model, adjusted to its specificities, and needs. Contribution models are typically intended to meet the following objectives: 1. The different countries’ shares should be calculated according to a transparent methodology relevant to the purpose of the ERIC, such as their population size, economic power, number of potential users, R&D spending, or shall be equal for all. 2. The method chosen shall be based on transparent, easy-to-acquire statistics and should make comparisons between countries possible. 3. Can have minimum and maximum thresholds in numbers as well as a maximum % for each individual country. 4. Include a specific rule or % for the host country premium. 5. May include an automatic adjustment for inflation. 6. Could foresee a specific fee for countries withdrawing early. 7. Include an adjusted formula for countries joining mid-year. 8. Special clauses for high volume infrastructure/equipment (not relevant of interest for DiSSCo). 18 - Population size is a good first indication in approaching comparability, as it is easy to identify for most countries. It does not however reflect the economic power of a country nor its R&D capacity. - Economic power is typically represented by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP). Both represent the total market value of all goods and services produced over a certain period. However, they are calculated in slightly different ways. GDP is the value of the finished domestic goods and services produced within a nation's borders. On the other hand, GNP is the value of all finished goods and services owned by a country's citizens, whether those goods are produced in that country or not. While GDP limits its interpretation of the economy to the geographical borders of the country, GNP extends it to include the net overseas economic activities performed by its nationals. GDP is more often used, sometimes called GNI (Gross National Income). As countries might expect annual differences in GDP, some ERICs prefer to calculate the average GDP over a number of years (typically 3 years). - Research and Development (R&D): When it comes to using R&D figures, one must distinguish between (1) gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), (2) R&D expenditure by sector of performance, and (3) R&D expenditure by source of funds. All these figures are available for EU and OECD countries. GERD includes expenditure on research and development by business enterprises, higher education institutions, as well as government and private non-profit organisations. In order to make the figures more comparable, GERD is often expressed relative to GDP or in relation to population. The ratio of GERD to GDP is also known as R&D intensity. As most R&D expenditure is covered by industry, and different countries have a different industrial base, countries might not be comparable. Alternatively, one might look at the higher education sector, or private non-profit sector. Finally, one might wish to use R&D expenditure by source of funds. R&D expenditure by sources of funds describes the origin of the R&D funding for a statistical unit. 7 Performer-based reporting of the sums which one unit, organisation, or sector has received from another unit, organisation, or sector for the performance of intramural R&D. R&D funds are identified with two criteria: there must be a direct transfer of resources and this transfer must be both intended and used for the performance of R&D. Source-based reporting of extramural expenditures which are the amounts a unit, an organisation, or a sector reports having paid to another unit, organisation, or sector for the performance of R&D. - Number of users per country: Very often institutions would like to use the number of potential users of a country or, if that is not available, the number of researchers. R&D personnel consists of all individuals employed directly in the field of R&D, including persons providing direct services, such as managers, administrators, and clerical staff. R&D researchers can be employed in the public or the private sector - including academia - to create new knowledge, products, processes, and methods, as well as to manage the projects concerned. Countries with a stronger industrial base therefore might have a higher number of R&D staff, making it more difficult to estimate potential users of a RI, who currently (with exceptions) mainly come from academia or the public sector. 7 All definitions are derived from both EUROSTAT and OECD statistics 19 For most countries, reliable past and current statistics are available from EUROSTAT, OECD.Stat and or World Bank Open Data. - Introduce a threshold: as some EU countries can be very small (e.g. Luxembourg) or very big (e.g. Germany), consortia developing a contribution model want to implement thresholds to ensure fairness. This might make sense when the formula developed is only based on population size or economic power alone. In such a case one would either introduce absolute or relative thresholds. Examples are minimum and/or maximum amounts or percentages. Another possibility is to split the contribution into fixed and variable amounts. In the latter case, there might still be a difference in size (e.g. in the case of BBMRI or EATRIS) or a fixed amount (e.g. in EU-OPENSCREEN). To reduce the risk of larger countries having to pay almost all of the total member contributions, some ERICs have introduced a mechanism of maximum share (BBMRI and EU-OPENSCREEN), with a redistribution of the overpayment across other participants. - Host country premium: The host country premium or the additional contribution of the state of incorporation (Statutory seat) is a delicate matter. Comparisons show a very diverse picture with no common rule. The minimal amount should be able to cover the expenses for the central office (without the personnel), incorporation, insurance, taxes etc. In rare cases several countries pay a premium for hosting specific common services (e.g. ICOS and BBMRI); this premium should be calculated transparently. Ultimately, it will depend on negotiation with the potential host country(ies). - Inflation rate: Nowadays, as inflation rates can be quite high, it is recommended to include a consideration of inflation in the calculation. Inflation is the increase in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy; the reverse situation is deflation, when prices decrease across the board. Inflation and deflation are usually measured by consumer price indices or retail price indices. Within the EU, a specific consumer price index has been developed: the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP). One possibility is either a fixed or a flexible percentage, calculated based on the previous year’s figures. It would therefore be a case of choosing the flexible percentage or using the index relevant for the host country (as most goods and services would be covered there) or an average of participating states (which will need to be recalculated with each new member), or the EU average. - Withdrawal of member countries: withdrawal of member countries will always represent an important change, as the money might have already been allocated, or personnel hired. Therefore, reasonable measures need to be taken to notify in advance (1-2 years ahead of withdrawal for less equipment-based RIs and 5-10 years for heavily equipment-based RIs) and/or foreseen fees (e.g. in percentage of the annual contribution) for premature departure (25-30% per annum). An interesting additional example provided by EATRIS is the rule for compensation in case of withdrawal of bigger countries (representing a loss of more than 7% of total contributions) by shifting those funds to the other participating countries. 20 2.6 Additional information on ERIC contribution models 1. Embedding international organisations ERICs allow international organisations (IO), for example the United Nations (UN), to be members or observers. In the case of the UN, it requires the permission of the 193 members. For embedding IO as observers, the Director General (DG) can simply decide and there is no hard and fast rule as to how to calculate their contribution. It can be directly negotiated between the IO and the ERIC’s GA. It is not mandatory that it is specified in the statutes. For instance, it can be decided during the first GA. 2. Minimum number of members to guarantee the funding of the RI No rule needs to be written in the statutes in order to guarantee a minimum level of funding for the ERIC. If some members leave the RI over the course of its implementation, it is possible to raise the topic during the GA and see if national contributions should be increased, or the level of service provided decreased. Based on advice from X-Officio (See appendix 1), by experience, it is not recommended to launch the ERIC with fewer than 5 countries. In case of a withdrawal of a member during the first 5 years of operation, the country concerned will have to pay for all 5 years of their initial commitment. This rule is guaranteed by the ERIC regulation. If a member does not want to pay, the ERIC would have the right to take them to court. In case of a withdrawal of a member after this 5-year period, the GA should be notified at least 2-3 years in advance: this clause should be included in the Statutes. 3. Minimum contributions expected from observers There is no rule for the minimum contribution expected from observers, although the details of observers’ subscription to the ERIC should be detailed in the ERIC’s statutes. It is realistic to ask 1/4 to 1/3 of the full membership fee, which is the typical observer’s fee for several ERICs. If observers have the same rights to access the services than members, 1/3 of the regular member contribution amount may be appropriate. 4. Definition of in-kind: statutes or service level agreements (SLAs) This depends on the expectations from the ERIC towards its member-institutions. If the in-kind contribution is strategically important, it is possible to write in the statutes that there will be an expectation on the participating institutions to contribute in-kind. It is also possible to add in the introduction of the ERIC statutes that institutions will be asked to contribute in-kind. Regarding the amount of the expected in-kind contribution, this is to be included in the service level agreements (SLAs). In the annexes, it is possible to foresee the annual agreed monetary equivalent on which the annual commitment is defined. 5. General Assembly and voting of the budget Budgetary cycles should not be specifically mentioned in the Statutes. Each year the budget is drafted and, as long as the GA agrees with the proposal, it will be actioned. In the case of higher investments (around 1/3 of the regular member contribution amount can be a threshold), it is possible to prepare a two-to-three-year budget with details and share it with the GA. 21 6. States joining during the year A rule should be included in the statutes in order to clarify how it would work in case a country joins the ERIC outside of the traditional budgetary cycle. There are two options: - The country has to pay from the month it joins the ERIC to the end of the year; - If the country joins the ERIC before the mid-year, it shall pay the full annual membership fee, if it joins the ERIC after the mid-year, it shall pay 50% of the annual membership fee. In both cases, countries commit to funding the ERIC for 5 years as of its joining. Joining is not effective as of the date chosen by the member country, but is instead actioned as of the date after the GA has agreed to it, in writing. It is very likely that the decision to welcome a new country will be taken during the GA. 7. Financial penalty in case of early withdrawal It is not relevant to mention a financial penalty in the statutes in case of early withdrawal of a member country. There is already a rule in place in case a member country withdraws from the ERIC before the end of the first 5 years. A good option is to negotiate early notification in case of a decision to exit the ERIC. 8. Non-EU countries Non-EU countries can be assigned to the same membership fee calculation. Sometimes, EUROSTAT only holds data for EU countries. In that case, it is possible to use equivalent data from the world bank or OECD. 9. Explanation of the expenditure covered by the national contributions There is no need to explain what the contributions will cover in the statutes. This will be specified in the annual work programme included with the annual budget. Both documents shall be approved by the GA. 10. ERICs’ eligibility to access loans ERICs can access loans like any private company. In practice, this requires the ERIC to demonstrate its bankability for a lender. The GA is responsible for approving the loan request. As it currently stands, the only case of an ERIC requesting a loan concerns the European Spallation Source ERIC (ESS). The whole construction cost amounts to 2 billion euros and required a loan guaranteed by the European Investment Bank. This is a very special case and it concerns a huge investment. In the case of DiSSCo, the decision should be taken 10 years before the request for the loan. 11. In case of reserves / cashflow Reserve authorisation will depend on the financial and monetary rules of the country with statutory seats. The rules will vary from one country to another. In some countries, ERICs are seen as a private organisation and should therefore follow private financial rules. In other countries, they are seen as public institutions. Typically, in the EU, public organisations are advised against establishing and keeping cash reserves. This caution does not apply to the private sector. 22 CHAPTER 3: DiSSCo national contributions calculation 3.1 Introduction to DiSSCo Timeline DiSSCo’s initial developments implemented through EU-funded projects (ICEDIG, MOBILISE COST, DiSSCo Prepare and SYNTHESYS+) already represent an estimated budget of more than €M 13. This budget mainly includes EU funding as well as in-kind contributions from participating institutions. In February 2023, DiSSCo will stop benefitting from these European funding programmes and enter into its transition phase (see figure 1). During the transition period, DiSSCo ERIC’s statutes and national annual contributions will be discussed among its future Members and Observers. The national contributions will represent the fixed annual budget of the RI. It is the funding on which many of the expenditures presented within this document will rely. The national contributions described within this document are intended to cover core DiSSCo activity for five years: the fixed costs of managing the DiSSCo Central Hub (€M 1.4 per year) 8 and provision of core services. This assumption is based on an incremental and rea listic approach. DiSSCo will first deploy a team with tools to ease access to NSC, who shall help the institutions to follow European shared innovations. 8 Landel, S.; Casino, A.; Guiraud, M. (2023) The Cost Book for DiSSCo. DiSSCo Prepare WP4 - D4.1. Figure 1 - DiSSCo RI Timeline 23 3.2 Main principles and rules for DiSSCo annual membership fees Four principles underlie the methodology developed by DiSSCo in order to calculate annual membership: 1. National membership fees shall be fair and equitable. They shall reflect the resources devoted to science and technology among DiSSCo members and countries’ population size. Annual spending on R&D and population size should have an impact on the membership fees. 2. The national annual wealth creation shall be an indicator for the DiSSCo annual membership fee. It can be an average of the GDP of the three years preceding the budget year concerned. 3. There should always be a significant minimum financial contribution, regardless of the size of the economy, in order to guarantee a minimum annual contribution from each participating country and avoid contributions that will be more expensive to manage than to benefit from. 4. The DiSSCo RI shall be able to annually adjust the contributions, notably in relation to inflation, and keep a minimum level of services thanks to membership fees, under the first 5 years commitment (see section2.5). These principles are supported by the five following recommended rules: Host Country annual membership: 25% of the annual cost of the Central Hub Office. Observer: observers shall pay one third of full annual membership, based on the same factors as for members. This is currently being discussed with the national nodes. At this stage it is a working hypothesis. In-kind: in-kind will be part of the negotiation with funders. The core Cost Book relies on annual cash contributions to fund the central DiSSCo infrastructure and management. It is understood that the wider RI relies on its member institutions’ in-kind contributions. New member, new observer: if a new member/observer joins before the mid-year (2 July), they shall pay the full annual fee. If they join the ERIC after the mid-year, they shall pay half of the annual fee. Limit maximum impact from one country: one Member State annual contribution shall not exceed 50% of total annual contributions to DiSSCo ERIC. 3.3 Relevant indicators for DiSSCo: economic power, R&D spending and population size When it comes to national annual contributions to research infrastructures, their calculation should strive to fairly distribute financial commitment among its members. As DiSSCo is implemented within the EU landscape, a useful source of indicators is the EUROSTAT website. In the case where EUROSTAT data are not available, OECD data or the World Bank data can be used instead. 30 With figure 3 we see that when we mix GDP and GERD/cap, the results are a bit more distributed among the members, compared to Option A (Figure 2). Some countries with high GERD/cap can contribute more and the annual contribution can be more broadly distributed. Such an assumption is confirmed thanks to the following data: Table 4: Main data issued from model B, mix of GDP and GERD/cap Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GDP 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% GERD/cap 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Standard deviation € 117 716 106 048 97 204 91 030 87 719 86 815 87 833 90 577 94 450 99 058 Min € 59 000 58 000 57 000 55 000 53 000 51 000 49 000 47 000 45 000 42 000 Max € 547 000 502 000 461 000 422 000 387 000 353 000 356 000 377 000 397 000 415 000 Factor 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 8 9 10 This table with the calculated data allows us to observe that the standard deviation varies more: from €K 120 to €K 86. The option with the smallest standard deviation mixes 40% GDP and 60% GERD/cap. Such an option allows for a minimum contribution of €K 51K per year and a maximum of €K 353 per year. There is a factor of 7 between the minimum and the maximum contributions, which is more balanced than for Option A. If we test this option with the eleven countries that are members of the DiSSCo Funders Forum, once again we see that whatever are the percentages chosen, the RI would get enough budget to cover its annual expenditure. Table 5: Estimation of annual contributions (in K euros) from Funders Forum members with option B Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Belgium 144 156 167 177 187 196 204 212 219 226 Bulgaria 63 60 58 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 Denmark 131 153 174 194 212 229 245 259 273 286 Estonia 64 66 68 70 72 74 75 77 78 80 France 398 363 331 301 273 248 224 201 180 160 Greece 84 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 68 66 Italy 307 277 249 223 199 177 156 137 118 101 Netherlands 183 185 186 187 189 190 191 192 193 193 Portugal 89 87 85 84 83 81 80 79 78 77 Slovakia 70 68 66 64 62 61 60 58 57 56 United Kingdom 404 365 329 295 264 235 208 183 159 137 Total estimated 1 937 1 861 1 792 1 727 1 669 1 615 1 563 1 514 1 468 1 425 Total with Host premium 2 287 2 211 2 142 2 077 2 019 1 965 1 913 1 864 1 818 1 775 31 4.3 Option C: with GDP/cap and GERD The third option also includes population size as an indicator and mixes GDP/cap and GERD. As the formula remains the same, it is possible to weight the different indicators, as it is shown in the following table: Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GDP/cap 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% GERD 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 4 - Test Option C: GDP/cap and GERD Ordinate axis: annual contribution per country // Abscissa: countries (numbers correspond to the table on the left side) 0 € 100 000 € 200 000 € 300 000 € 400 000 € 500 000 € 600 000 € 700 000 € 800 000 € 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Série1 Série2 Série3 Série4 Série5 Série6 Série7 Série8 Série9 Série10 32 Figure 4 shows that the results with option C are more homogeneously distributed than for options A & B. Only Germany can reach a high point in terms of annual contributions but according to the mix selected it is possible to find a more balanced option. The following data can help to find a more balanced model: Table 6: Main data issued from model C, mix of GDP/cap and GERD Serie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GDP/cap 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% GERD 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Standard deviation € 84 551 81 455 79 152 78 106 79 068 82 412 88 857 98 949 113 068 131 565 Min € 42 000 44 000 47 000 50 000 53 000 56 000 60 000 64 000 69 000 72 000 Max € 384 000 363 000 340 000 320 000 368 000 422 000 483 000 552 000 631 000 722 000 Factor 9 8 7 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 Table 6 shows that the standard deviation varies from one option to another: from €K 78 to €K 131. Here, the smallest standard deviation is the option which mixes 60% of GDP/cap and 40% GERD. It is the option where all national contributions are the least scattered around the median. With that option, the minimum annual contribution is €K 50 per year and the maximum is €K 320 per year. There is a factor of 6 between the minimum and the maximum: it allows for a more balanced national contributions model. This model also goes through the test with the 11 funders forum members. If we add all of their annual contributions, the total covers the expenditure of the research infrastructure and allows for its implementation. Table 7: Estimation (in K euros) of annual contributions from Funders Forum members with option C Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Belgium 168 168 166 165 164 163 161 159 157 155 Bulgaria 42 44 47 50 53 56 60 64 69 75 Denmark 211 206 199 192 185 176 166 155 142 127 Estonia 81 81 80 80 79 78 77 77 75 74 France 163 178 196 215 236 260 287 318 354 394 Greece 76 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 85 Italy 132 138 146 154 162 172 184 196 211 228 Netherlands 187 186 185 185 184 182 181 180 178 176 Portugal 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 Slovakia 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 76 76 77 United Kingdom 165 176 189 203 218 236 255 278 303 333 Total estimated 1 387 1 415 1 447 1 485 1 523 1 566 1 615 1 674 1 738 1 813 Total with Host premium 1 737 1 765 1 797 1 835 1 873 1 916 1 965 2 024 2 088 2 163 33 4.4 Hypothesis of contributions adjusted according to inflation One of the principles of the DiSSCo annual contribution models adds inflation as a factor of evolution of the membership fees. Here, it is understood that this may not be indexed on an annual basis but that every five years (minimum length of commitment), the contributions could evolve according to inflation. One uncertainty with inflation is that it is highly unpredictable. One option is to understand that according to macroeconomic good practices, it should be around 2% per year. As the working hypothesis is that DiSSCo's statutory seat will be in the Netherlands, the applicable inflation rate is associated with the one of the Netherlands. If the costs of the RI rise due to inflation, it will mainly be connected to the inflation rate of the host country. On that basis, it is possible to model the impact of inflation on DiSSCo’s income, as shown on the graph below. Figure 5: Simulating inflation, between 2024 and 2040 – Basic number: 2% inflation per year In relation with inflation, three main figures would evolve accordingly: - The baseline fee (50,000 €) - The total maximum amount with the addition of the 31 hypothetic members (4,500,000 €) - The annual host premium fee (350,000 €) If the RI is launched in 2024, the first indexation of its fees would then be in 2029. According to the data connected to the graph above, the following evolution may happen: - Indexed baseline fee: 55 200 € - Indexed total maximum amount: 4 970 000 € - Annual host premium fee: 390 000 € If we take the median of annual contributions in 2024 (starting year), and the median of annual contributions in 2025 (+ 5 years), we obtain the graphs below (Figures 6, 7 and 9). We see that in comparison with the total annual contribution, inflation has not a major impact on the evolution of each country’s annual membership fees. On average, the contributions would be increased by 10% between 2024 and 2029. 0 € 20 000 € 40 000 € 60 000 € 80 000 € 0,00% 0,50% 1,00% 1,50% 2,00% 2,50% 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Simulation of inflation - DiSSCo baseline fee Baseline Inflation rate Netherlands 34 Figure 7: simulation of inflation, Model B Figure 8: Simulation of inflation, Model C 0 € 200 000 € 400 000 € 600 000 € 800 000 € Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Model A - Hypothesis of inflation 2029 (+5 years) Median A 2024 Median increase with inflation A 2029 0 € 100 000 € 200 000 € 300 000 € 400 000 € 500 000 € Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Model B - Hypothesis of inflation 2029 (+5 years) Median B 2024 Median increase with inflation B 2029 0 € 100 000 € 200 000 € 300 000 € 400 000 € 500 000 € Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Model C - Hypothesis of inflation 2029 (+5 years) Median C 2024 Median increase with inflation B 2029 Figure 6: simulation of inflation, Model A 35 4.5 Proposal of two most balanced options As shown in the sections 4.2 and 4.3, the two best balanced options are - Option B: 40% GDP and 60% GERD/cap - Option C: 60% GDP/cap and 40% GERD We recommend these 2 options to share with DiSSCo potential future funders, summarized in Table 8. As a lot of data can be extracted from this flexible formula, a selection has to be made on the basis of predefined criteria. Table 8: 2024 Annual membership fees (in euros) according to the two recommended options Countries Option B - GDP & GERD/cap Option C – GDP/cap & GERD Austria 211 000 172 000 Belgium 196 000 165 000 Bulgaria 51 000 50 000 Croatia 57 000 64 000 Cyprus 59 000 98 000 Czechia 93 000 90 000 Denmark 229 000 192 000 Estonia 74 000 80 000 Finland 184 000 159 000 France 248 000 215 000 Germany 353 000 320 000 Greece 73 000 78 000 Hungary 70 000 69 000 Iceland 194 000 209 000 Ireland 149 000 228 000 Italy 177 000 154 000 Latvia 52 000 69 000 Lithuania 60 000 73 000 Luxembourg 178 000 314 000 Malta 59 000 103 000 Netherlands 190 000 185 000 Norway 220 000 236 000 Poland 84 000 73 000 Portugal 81 000 88 000 Romania 57 000 58 000 Slovakia 61 000 75 000 Slovenia 92 000 91 000 Spain 137 000 125 000 Sweden 242 000 189 000 Switzerland 334 000 275 000 United Kingdom 235 000 203 000 Total 4 500 000 4 500 000 36 The graph below illustrates Table 8. The annual contributions remain stable across Options B and C. Except for a few countries (with higher GDP/cap), choosing between the two options will not greatly impact the budgets of the DiSSCo future members. Figure 9: visualisation of annual membership fees distribution according to the two proposals selected 0 € 50 000 € 100 000 € 150 000 € 200 000 € 250 000 € 300 000 € 350 000 € 400 000 € 012345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Option B - GDP & GERD/cap Option C - GDPCap & GERD 37 CHAPTER 5: Potential future developments of the DiSSCo RI business model 5.1 DiSSCo Business Framework The DiSSCo RI can be represented with concentric circles. At the centre there is the hub which coordinates the demand and the provision of services. Around this hub, there is the perimeter of the ERIC: it can encompass bodies other than the hub. Service Level Agreements (SLAs)may be signed with institutions who would then become service providers on behalf of the ERIC. The final circle is the Research Infrastructure: inside this circle are the institutions who implement the activities of the RI that are already part of the institutions’ missions. The addition of all the concentric circles represents the economic value and, at the same time, the economic impact of the RI and thus – for DiSSCo – the economic impact of digitisation of natural science collections in Europe. DiSSCo RI’s peculiarity is that it is intended to be mainly virtual and work with a distributed architecture that impacts the costs of the RI: i) The costs to coordinate the RI and provide some of its core services are fixed and mainly centralised. ii) The costs for the nodes / members to provide services on demand on behalf of the RI are variable and mainly decentralised. It is important to make the distinction between the ERIC costs and the costs of the RI. - The ERIC costs can be considered as fixed and centralised: the cost to run the Central Hub and provide the core services of the RI. - The RI costs are larger and involve in-kind contributions from its members. The RI itself can be broadly defined as provisioning access to natural science collections in Europe. The costs to provide this access can be extensively large: from travelling to the field in order to collect new specimens, to digitising collections and preserving the collections in the long-term. This is mainly the responsibility of DiSSCo members, and the role of the ERIC will be to ease the connection between the demand for access and access providers. This objective can be met by designing e-services: IT tools should make the data FAIR and facilitate the production of data related to natural science collections. With that understanding, the core service of the ERIC will be to design and maintain these digital services. In a broader perspective, the funding of an ERIC is not limited to its Member States. DPP WP4 also studies the opportunities to charge for some DiSSCo services (T4.2). Here, the goal is to understand who are the potential users of the RI and what is the market of the research infrastructure. This work relates to cost calculation: the pricing of the services should not fall below the actual cost to provide 38 the services. According to the findings of this task, a model for charging services could be developed. However, the determinant question in the elaboration of this model asks which users would be required to pay for the services. Specifically, will users whose research is publicly funded pay for these services? This question links to task 4.3: institutions/researchers could have free access to the RI services as their country would participate in its funding. Meanwhile, users from countries other than the Member States might be required to pay in order to access the services. Another option for funding the activities of the ERIC concerns EU funding opportunities. As DiSSCo will mainly provide services for research-related activities, it can apply to the Horizon Europe programme. Still, the ERIC should not limit itself to funding for research. Depending on its activities, the ERIC could apply to other types of EU funding. 5.2 Inspiration from other RIs: a growth model In order to gain a more qualitative understanding of the funding models of research infrastructures, WP4 met with representatives of ELIXIR and BBMRI. ELIXIR is not an ERIC but an international organisation. It has a similar functioning to DiSSCo: a Central Hub and a network of institutions that implement part of the services of the RI. BBMRI is an ERIC whose statutes have been signed in 2013. Both RIs do not come from the same field as DiSSCo (environment) but can be inspiring in their mode of operation. Results of the ELIXIR interview ELIXIR explained that its Central Hub focuses on the coordination and administration of activities. It provides advice on standards and systems to be used within the RI. Within this framework, the Central Hub does not produce any technical or scientific services. An important element for the Central Hub team is to have the capacity (in this case 1 FTE) to monitor the impact of actions implemented by the RI. This makes it possible to justify the RI's expenditure and to have a more solid argument with funders about the place occupied by the RI and the impact of its services. The study of impacts can be done through KPIs, but also through qualitative studies and success stories. Since ELIXIR was launched in 2013, the Central Hub has grown rapidly. Part of it depends on structural funding (member states) and part on project funding. ELIXIR's strategy was initially to have a strong hub to stabilise the activity and ensure coherence. Activities were gradually decentralised between the Hub and local nodes. Calls for projects were opened to select service providers. The hub allocates funding to the nodes to hire staff to work for the RI. The decentralisation of activities is done in stages with a smaller budget at the beginning to test the viability of their offer. Results of the BBMRI interview According to the BBMRI representative, the Central Hub should have the task of providing essential activities for ERIC funding, such as funding and coordination of activities. Again, a Central Hub ensures the coherence of activities implemented by the RI. BBMRI is in contact with 3 levels of partners: nodes, biological databanks and the public. Each member has to nominate a node to represent it. 39 BBMRI has also grown significantly: in the first year the hub consisted of 8 people, today – in May 2022 - it has 20. According to its representative, the DG's role is to visit European governments to convince them of the usefulness of the IR and to increase the number of member states. There are rarely more than 10 member-states at the start of an ERIC. The initial budget was around 1.5 million euros and covered mainly administration, technical teams (lawyers/IT). 5.3 Growth opportunities for DiSSCo: service provision and integration of member institutions DiSSCo will be a distributed research infrastructure. This means that its actions will be distributed among its member institutions. The connection between the partners are the Natural Science Collections and the affiliated services. In this context, and mirroring the other RIs encountered, the question arises of the articulation between the Research Infrastructure and its members and the management of funding. It is also important to understand that the national nodes are the contact points between potential funders and the research infrastructure. Results from workshops and questionnaires with DiSSCo national node representatives In this context, workshops were held with the nodes to understand the expectations of national funders and the potential for distribution of DiSSCo activities to its members. Questionnaires accompanied these working groups. Of the 21 countries that have signed the DiSSCo Memorandum of Understanding and the 11 that participate in the DiSSCo Funders Forum, only a small group participated in this study. A first result is that 5 out of the 7 institutions that responded indicated that they are in discussion with their ministry on DiSSCo ERIC funding. 9 According to the participants, the arguments that speak most to funders are the acceleration of the national research strategy and the establishment of links with existing research infrastructures. According to the institutions that participated in the study, the biggest risks for DiSSCo and its future funding is an uncertain political environment. A number of the participants in the survey were unaware of the funding of ERICs in their countries. According to the questionnaire’s participants, one of the main added values of ERICs is to provide services that are not available elsewhere. Another question concerned the allocation of funding to ERICs. In some cases, it is possible that they are allocated to the national node, which in turn transfers these funds to the central node. In another scenario, the ministry in charge of funding could transfer the contribution directly to the ERIC. According to the questionnaire participants, two of them indicated that the funding was transferred through the national node and one said that it was transferred directly to the Central Hub. Another issue raised by the workshop series was that of digitisation plans driven by the European level. One of the questions asked whether other institutions involved in the project have implemented mass digitisation plans. From the experience of the MNHN, there are two types of digitisation plans. Some 9 The results of the workshops are more specifically studied within deliverable 4.3: Guiraud M., (et al.). 2021 Deliverable report D4.5 "Models for government funding". 46 Appendix 2: explanation of the membership contribution This annex lays out the mechanism of calculating the annual contributions by members, observers, and intergovernmental organisations. The overall amount of contribution shall be defined in the annual work programme and budget. The following principles shall apply to contribution of members and observers: 1. Contributions shall be based on a combination of GERD/per capita and GDP [GERD and GDP/per capita]. 2. The minimal threshold of a contribution shall be EUR 50,000 (for members). 3. Contribution of observers shall be calculated as 1/3 of the standard contribution for full members. 4. Contributions of intergovernmental organisations shall be subject to the General Assembly’s decision and fixed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the organisation, its members, and the R&D capacity. 5. None of the Members shall pay more than 50% of the overall amount of contributions by members/observers. In case the contribution of a member exceeds this level, the difference shall then be distributed among the other member/observer states according to their percentage levels of GDP. This will be a monetary contribution (not in-kind). 6. The hosting country (statutory seat) shall pay an extra premium fee as defined by the formula. The following formula shall apply to calculating the level of contributions: Whereas: DAM: DiSSCo annual membership F: baseline fee = 50,000 € I: indicators = GERD/cap, GDP, [GDP/cap, GERD] Cri: [(10-1)/(maxI-minI)]*I(x)+[10-((10-1)/(maxI-minI))*I(x)] A: Contribution factor = CFa = (1-α)*CriGDP+αCriR&D/cap[CFa = (1-α)*CriGDP+αCriR&D] x: country H: Host premium fee calculation (25% of Central Hub Office annual costs) DiSSCo general membership fee calculation model For members: DAM(x) = F*A(x) For Host premium: DAM(x) = F*A(x) + H 47 Appendix 3: detailed data from EUROSTAT 12 12 Average figures between 2017, 2018 and 2019 Average GERD (M EUR) Average GERD / cap (EUR / inhabitant) Average GDP (M EUR) Average GDP/cap (EUR/cap) Average (Population on 1 January - total) Austria 11 881 1 347 383 935 43 443 8 822 267 Belgium 13 379 1 173 461 249 40 350 11 398 589 Bulgaria 442 63 56 772 8 080 7 050 034 Croatia 509 124 52 716 12 873 4 105 493 Cyprus 136 157 21 721 24 940 864 236 Czechia 3 929 370 210 239 19 777 10 610 055 Denmark 8 905 1 541 302 221 52 177 5 781 190 Estonia 374 283 25 844 18 487 1 319 133 Finland 6 442 1 169 233 207 42 280 5 513 130 France 51 952 775 2 366 061 35 080 67 026 224 Germany 104 749 1 265 3 368 623 40 640 82 792 351 Greece 2 185 203 179 937 16 760 10 741 165 Hungary 1 961 201 136 535 13 967 9 778 371 Iceland 472 1 357 22 110 62 793 348 450 Ireland 3 970 820 327 033 67 200 4 830 392 Italy 25 095 416 1 768 211 29 533 60 483 973 Latvia 173 90 28 939 15 023 1 934 379 Lithuania 430 153 45 567 16 233 2 808 901 Luxembourg 721 1 197 60 221 98 850 602 005 Malta 74 154 12 981 26 673 475 701 Netherlands 16 798 978 775 063 44 963 17 181 084 Norway 7 600 1 435 361 782 68 100 5 295 619 Poland 5 966 157 499 094 12 993 37 972 964 Portugal 2 782 270 205 169 19 937 10 291 027 Romania 1 012 52 205 550 10 550 19 533 481 Slovakia 759 139 89 661 16 463 5 443 120 Slovenia 895 432 45 807 22 063 2 066 880 Spain 14 860 318 1 203 955 25 727 46 658 447 Sweden 15 976 1 580 475 856 46 793 10 120 242 Switzerland 19 752 2 328 633 491 74 400 8 484 130 United Kingdom 41 991 634 2 435 767 36 667 66 273 576 48 Appendix 4: introduction to EU funding One common characteristic of ERICs is their need for funding to support international and interdisciplinary projects and users, as well as their need of funding to sustainably develop their services and capacities. Thus, to permit the sustainable development of ERICs over the next decade, it is fundamental to have a good knowledge of the landscape of both EUand non-EU funding sources. Beyond ensuring funding for the development of ERICs, a good knowledge and optimal use of the funding instruments at several levels will also enhance the visibility of ERICs within the research community. The sources used to generate this report are both presented throughout the text in their relevant sections and at the end of the document. This chapter will first introduce general principles of EU funding. In the second section, it will detail information on the different EU funding available for DiSSCo. 4.1 General information on EU funding Before you apply: EU funding for beginners | European Commission (europa.eu) This section provides general information about types of funding for applicants interested applying for EU funding, that should be checked before looking for and applying for funding. There are different types of funding: grants, financial instruments (loans, guarantees and equity), subsidies, trust funds, prizes and procurements (public contracts). The implementation rules for all types of funding are governed by the Financial Regulation. 4.1.1 Types of funding 4.1.1.1 Grants Direct financial contributions from the European Union budget awarded by way of a donation to third party beneficiaries (usually non-profit-making organisations) engaged in activities that serve EU policies. Mostly subject to centralised management by the European Commission, either directly by its own departments or indirectly through EU agencies, executive agencies or national agencies. Grants represent a major part of the European Union's expenditure and fall into two broad categories: i) Grants that finance actions intended to help to achieve an objective that forms part of an EU policy; ii) Operating grants that finance the operating expenditure of a body pursuing an aim of general European interest or an objective that forms part of an EU policy. Grants are based on the costs actually incurred by the beneficiaries for carrying out the activities in question, and the results of the action remain the property of the beneficiaries. 49 4.1.1.2 Financial instruments Measures of financial support provided on a complimentary basis from the budget in order to address specific policy objectives of the EU. Where appropriate, can be combined with grants. Types of financial instruments include: equity and debt, loan guarantees and venture capital, capacity building, and risk sharing facilities. Financial instruments can achieve: ● Financial leverage - multiplying scarce budgetary resources by attracting private and public funds to support EU policy objectives; ● Policy leverage - incentivising entrusted entities and financial intermediaries to pursue EU policy objectives through alignment of interest; ● Institutional leverage - benefiting from the expertise of the actors involved in the implementation chain. These instruments, implemented in partnership with public and private institutions, address market failures in the provision of external financing and avoid any crowding-out of private financing. 4.1.1.3 Trust funds Pool funding mechanism, in which several donors jointly finance an action on the basis of commonly agreed objectives and reporting formats. Each EU trust fund has its own governing board, which decides on the use of the pooled resources. An EU trust fund acts collectively on behalf of the EU and all the contributors to its financing. Information is available on existing EU trust funds and allocation of funds. 4.1.1.4 Prizes A prize is a financial contribution given as a reward following a contest. 4.1.1.5 Subsidies Subsidies are a big part of the funding provided by the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), offering, among other things, direct cash payments to farmers so they can bolster their income. Subsidies also aim to reduce economic and social disparity in the EU's poorest regions. Through the EU's Cohesion Fund, subsidies are awarded to help pay for infrastructure projects and protect the environment. 50 4.1.1.6 Public procurement contracts 13 Purchase of services, supplies or works by a contracting authority (EU Institution or local administration in the Member State) via a public contract. As a general rule, a public contract is clearly different from a grant: ● In the case of a contract, the contracting authority obtains a product or service it needs in return for payment; ● In the case of a grant it contributes either to a project carried out by an external organisation or direct to that organisation because its activities contribute to EU policy aims. If you are looking for public procurement 14 contracts, please see tender opportunities. 4.1.2 Funding by management mode All the programmes funded by the EU budget fall under one of three types of implementation modes 15 depending on the nature of the funding concerned: ● Direct management: EU funding is managed directly by the European Commission; ● Shared management: the European Commission and national authorities jointly manage the funding; ● Indirect management: funding is managed by partner organisations or other authorities inside or outside the EU. Therefore, while the EU provides the funding for a specific programme or project, it is not always directly involved in the day-to-day management. However, whereas the Member States are in charge of the implementation of the majority of the EU budget, it is the Commission that has the ultimate responsibility for its execution. 4.1.2.1 Direct management In direct management, the European Commission is directly responsible for all steps in a programme's implementation: ● launching the calls for proposals ● evaluating submitted proposals ● signing grant agreements ● monitoring project implementation ● assessing the results ● making payments 13 French L, Livermore L, Alonso E, Casino A, Dusoulier F, Groom Q, Hardy H, Juslén A, Mergen P & Smith VS (2021) Procurement Strategy and Policy: DiSSCo Prepare WP 8 - Milestone 8.4, https://know.dissco.eu/handle/item/504 14 Pijls S. ; Leliaert F. ; Mergen P. ; Robertshaw S. Roadmap for the partnerships project within the EU PCP framework. DiSSCo Prepare WP 4, Milestone 4.4. 15 Funding by management mode | European Commission (europa.eu) 51 These tasks are carried out by the Commission's departments, at its headquarters, in the EU delegations or through EU executive agencies (See section II); there are no third parties. Programmes implemented in direct management account for around 20% of the EU budget 2021-2027. Calls for proposals under direct management are published on the Funding and Tenders Portal (SEDIA). 4.1.2.2 Shared management In shared management, both the European Commission and national authorities in Member States, such as ministries and public institutions, are in charge of running a particular programme. Around 70% of EU programmes are run this way. 16 Example: a farmer with a project to start growing organic tomatoes should apply for funds under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - and needs to go through the country's Ministry of Agriculture, or an equivalent institution, which would be in charge of managing the funds for the project on behalf of the EU. The Member States' administrations (at national, regional and local level) choose which projects to finance and take responsibility for day-to-day management. 4.1.2.3 Indirect management Some funding programmes are partly or fully implemented with the support of entities, e.g. national authorities or international organisations. The majority of the EU budget allocated to humanitarian aid and international development is implemented under indirect management. Examples include the financial support to fight the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the earthquake in Nepal in 2015. Programmes implemented under indirect management account for around 10% of the overall EU budget. Under this management mode, the Commission delegates budget execution tasks to different types of implementing partners, for example: ● Third countries or the bodies they have designated; ● International organisations such as the United Nations (UN) family, the World bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF); ● the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF); ● Decentralised agencies such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) or the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex); ● Public-private partnerships, including Joint Undertakings such as Initiative on Innovative Medicines, Shift2Rail, European High Performance Computing (EuroHPC); ● Member States Bodies such as Erasmus+ national agencies, Member States’ development agencies, National Promotional Bank. 16 National single portals: the single-entry points for EU funds managed by national and regional authorities. 52 4.1.3 Funding entries These sub-programmes of the MFF can be accessed through different entry points, namely: Access by Headings or Spending categories; access by topics; access by National Single Portals; access by specific programmes; access by funds; and access by Agencies. Figure 11 - Figure showing the sub-programmes of the MMF 2021-2027 that are relevant to DiSSCo and the different entries to these funding programmes, detailed in the following sections 4.1.3.1 MFF by headings MFF headings represent the subdivision of the EU funds by different thematic. There are 7 headings altogether but only headings 4 to 7 are relevant to DiSSCo. 4.1.3.2 MFF funding by topics This page lists information about calls for proposal (e.g. grants) sorted according to the major EU topics and areas of action. Information about other funding opportunities (e.g. public procurement) is also included on some of the pages. For some topics, both calls for proposal and calls for tender launched via different EU funding programmes are shown. Areas of action include: digitization, environment, infrastructures, education and training, research and innovation… For a full overview of funding opportunities per headings, consult section II.1.1. For more information on the different types of funding, see section I.1 and the Before you apply page. 53 4.2.1.3 MFF funding by National single portals – sorted by state members 17 The national portals are websites set up by Member States to inform citizens about the implementation of Union funds in their countries during the 2021-2027 funding period. Each country has its own national website portal, which covers implementation of: ● European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) ● European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) ● Cohesion Fund (CF) ● Just Transition Fund (JTF) National portals exist for the EU funds presented above – these links lead to the same funding programmes as those presented in section 6.2. 4.1.3.3 MFF funding by programmes or groups of funding The management of these funds is done in collaboration with the European Commission and national public authorities. These portals constitute national single-entry points for EU funds, also providing access to all programmes in a country. The national website portals and the programme websites offer up-to-date information on upcoming funding opportunities, namely which regions are covered by funding calls, who can apply, the amount of funding allocated to a call, programme and EU policy objectives, and timeline. These websites also offer useful information for applicants and beneficiaries whose projects have been selected for support. Success stories, highlighted projects, guidelines to apply to funding calls, information about training and other useful information is presented here (in national languages) and can serve as inspiration for aspiring project beneficiaries. 4.1.3.4 Funding through European Agencies There are currently 76 European institutions and bodies that may represent potential partners for DiSSCo in the long-term. These agencies can provide advice, training, funding and other types of support to DiSSCo-ERIC and DiSSCo’s users. For example the European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/), or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency | European Commission (europa.eu)) could represent potential partners for DiSSCo. 17 National single portals | European Commission (europa.eu) 54 CINEA manages the programmes of the European Commission contributing to decarbonisation and sustainable growth. CINEA manages the following EU programmes, for which DiSSCo is eligible: Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Horizon Europe, Innovation Fund, LIFE programme, EU Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism, Just Transition Mechanism. 4.2 Available EU funding sources and relevance for DiSSCo This section presents the main streams through which the European Commission can provide funding and support to DiSSCo-ERIC, namely: the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, the European Investment Bank and the Transnational Access Scheme. These streams are subdivided into sub-programmes that are detailed in each section. Among the many sub-programmes included in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, the programme Horizon Europe may represent the main funding source for DiSSCO-ERIC; the sub-programmes of Horizon Europe are therefore presented in detail. The current EU long-term budget, running from 2021 to 2027, is known as the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). This budget is seconded by the instrument NextGenerationEU supporting the recovery plan for Europe. The MFF 2021-2027 includes the new EU budget structure, funding programmes, and data on spending and revenue. The 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework is divided into sub-programmes (e.g. Horizon Europe, Invest EU, Cohesion Europe…) that are detailed in the next sections. Figure 12Figure showing the four main streams through which the European Commission can provide funding and support to DiSSCo-ERIC. These four streams are presented in detail in the following five sections. 55 This section provides an overview of the funding opportunities financed by the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework and NextGenerationEU by heading. See also the new brochure on the MFF 2021-2027 and NextGenerationEU. 18 18 Weblink: EU funding programmes | European Commission (europa.eu) Figure 13 - architecture of the MFF and its funding programmes. Information includes: stars classification depending of the relevance of the programmes for DiSSCo, potential recipients of the funding within DiSSCo, and other parameters. 62 European Research Council 33 Objective: ERC is the premier European funding organisation for excellent frontier research. It funds creative researchers of any nationality and age, to run projects based across Europe. The ERC offers 4 main grant schemes: i) Starting Grants, ii) Consolidator Grants, iii) Advanced Grants and iv) Synergy Grants. The ERC is led by an independent governing body, the Scientific Council. The overall ERC budget from 2021 to 2027 is more than €16 billion, as part of the Horizon Europe scheme. Research grants provided by the ERC can be used to finance access to ERICs’ facilities and services, but it requires ERICs to be eligible as large access facilities, as well as that ERICs improve their visibility among the research community to attract researchers to apply to ERC with an ERIC as a host/partner, since many researchers are unaware of the existing ERICs and the services they provide. Limitation: A weakness of this source of funding for ERICs concerns distributed ERICs that have faced administrative challenges when there is a simultaneous implication in the project of an ERICs headquarter (coordination/core team/Central Hub) and one or more of its national nodes. This adds significant hurdles to the execution of the projects and also has an impact on ERICs visibility as a single entity. Grant applications portal: Apply for a grant | ERC (europa.eu) 33 Homepage: ERC at a glance | ERC (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: ERC hosts a dedicated portal for researchers. Applications would be by DiSSCo’s users. Awards can be used by researchers to finance access to DiSSCo’s facilities and services. DiSSCo’s national and local nodes and member’s institutions could serve as host for the award. 63 4.2.1.2 European Strategic Investments The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) / InvestEU 34 Objective: The EFSI aims to overcome the current investment gap in the European Union by mobilising private financing for strategic investments which the market cannot finance alone. It will support strategic investments in infrastructure as well as risk finance for SMEs. The EU will provide €21 billion in initial funding and the European Investment Bank's own resources (€5 billion). The fund will be set up within existing EIB Group structures, allowing it to start quickly and to benefit from the EIB's experience. The EFSI will have two main focuses: Infrastructure and Innovation (managed by the EIB), and SMEs (managed by the EIB and the EIF). Eligibility: Projects eligible for financing, ● Must have high societal and economic value contributing to EU policy objective ● Must attract private capital by addressing market failures. ● Must come on top of existing EIB and EU financing possibilities. ● Must be economically and technically viable. ● Must be consistent with EU state aid rules. ● Some examples of key growth-enhancing areas being targeted by the EFSI are: ● Infrastructure (transport, energy, digital, environment, urban and social sectors) ● Education and training, health, R&D, ICT, innovation ● Renewable energy and energy efficiency ● Support to SMEs and mid-cap companies. Contact for funding request: Anyone – not limited to Member States - can submit their request for financing to the EIB for Infrastructure and Innovation investments. 34 Homepage: The European Fund for Strategic Investments | European Commission (europa.eu) 64 InvestEU 35 Objectives: the InvestEU Programme will boost innovation and job creation in Europe. It will provide and attract long-term funding. InvestEU will leverage substantial private and public funds that are protected through an EU budget guarantee. InvestEU will serve to carry out investments in sustainable infrastructure, research and innovation, digitisation, small and medium-sized enterprises and midcaps; and social investment and skills, across the EU. The programme will be structured around four 4 policy windows: 1. Sustainable infrastructure 2. Research, innovation and digitisation 3. SMEs 4. Social investment and skills Types of funding: provides guarantee to support financing and investment operations and advisory support for the development of investable projects and access to financing. How to apply for InvestEU financing: project promoters should apply directly to the European Investment Bank or to one of the Implementing partners, as soon as the InvestEU guarantee is available to them. This will be marked on the InvestEU website. SMEs and small mid-caps, microfinance and social enterprises may also apply through financial intermediaries of the implementing partners. Finance from the other Implementing Partners - national and regional promotional banks, or International Financial Institutions will be available thereafter. 35 European Commission Webpage : InvestEU Programme website: Home (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: central hub, potentially national nodes, to build partnership between DiSSCo-ERIC and partners (Private companies, Banks, Financial institutions). Eligibility: Public and private investors and project promoters, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and mid-caps, service providers and recipients of microfinance. Programme duration: 2021-2027 MFF heading: Single Market, Innovation and Digital; Total budget 2021-2027: € 10.28 billion, of which € 6.07 billion under NextGenerationEU (current prices). 65 Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 36 Objectives: to accelerate investments in Europe’s transport, energy and digital infrastructure networks. To support the twin green and digital transitions, by contributing to the ambitious infrastructure targets for the European Green Deal and the digital decade. CEF is a key EU funding instrument to promote growth, jobs and competitiveness through targeted infrastructure investment at European level. It supports the development of high performing, sustainable and efficiently interconnected trans-European networks in the fields of transport, energy and digital services. CEF makes travel easier and more sustainable, it enhances Europe’s energy security while enabling wider use of renewables, and it facilitates cross-border interaction between public administrations, businesses and citizens. The CEF is divided into three sectors: transport, energy, digital. 37 CEF Digital – HaDEA, the digital part of the Connecting Europe Facility contributes to: ● Development of safe, secure and sustainable high-performance infrastructure including Gigabit and 5G networks; ● Increased capacity and resilience of digital backbone infrastructures; ● Digitalisation. Types of funding: The programme provides financial support, primarily in the form of grants, with different co-financing rates depending on the project type, to three main sectors: transport, energy, and digital. 36 European Commission Webpage : Connecting Europe Facility Programme website: About the Connecting Europe Facility (europa.eu) 37 - The digital part of the Connecting Europe Facility is managed by the Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) – Most relevant sector for DiSSCo. Relevance for DiSSCo: Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA – see below) that manages the digital part of the Connecting Europe Facility. CEF is relevant to National and local nodes, and public-private partnership. Eligibility: Industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, research organisations, other public and private entities established in a Member State or in a non-EU country associated with the programme, or created under EU law, and international organisations. In addition to grants, the CEF offers financial support to projects through innovative financial instruments such as guarantees and project bonds. These instruments create significant leverage in their use of EU budget and act as a catalyst to attract further funding from the private sector and other public sector actors. How to apply/Calls for proposal: Calls for proposals (europa.eu) ; The programme will primarily be implemented through direct management by executive agencies. Programme duration: 2021-2027 Total budget 2021-2027: € 20.73 billion (current prices) 66 Digital Europe Programme 38 Objectives: to accelerate the recovery and drive the EU’s digital transformation, to build the EU’s strategic digital capacities and facilitate wide deployment of digital technologies, to be used by EU citizens, businesses and public administrations. The digital Europe programme supports the strengthening of digital capacities for high-performance computing, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, along with advanced digital skills and accelerating the adoption and best use of digital technologies. Includes several work programmes such as: DIGITAL Europe - EDIH Work Programme 2021-2023 (.pdf), specifically dedicated to the European Digital Innovation Hubs Types of funding: funding is disbursed in the form of grants and procurements directly managed by the Commission, under the direct management scheme, or under indirect management for the highperformance computing and cybersecurity actions, by the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking and the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre. 38 European Commission Webpage : Digital Europe Programme Programme website: The Digital Europe Programme | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: relevant at all levels of DiSSCo-ERIC, from central hub, to national and local nodes, and individual users. Digital-EDIH programme is specifically dedicated to the European Digital Innovation hubs. Eligibility: Public and private organisations, industry and SMEs, scientists and academics, universities, etc. Calls for proposal: Funding & tenders (europa.eu) ; European Digital Innovation Hubs | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) Programme duration: 2021-2027; Total budget 2021-2027: € 7.59 billion (current prices) 67 4.2.2 Heading 2: Cohesion and Values The main programmes under this spending category aim to strengthen the cohesion among EU Member States. In this way, they reduce disparities in EU regions, within and across Member States, and promote sustainable territorial development. In addition, through investment in young people, health and actions to protect EU’s values, the programmes seek to make Europe more resilient to the various challenges that our continent is and will be facing in the future. The Recovery and Resilience Facility and REACT-EU, the two main programmes under NextGenerationEU, are also included in this heading. Associated group of funding: European structural and investment funds (ESIF) 39 ESIF is particularly dedicated and relevant to RIs. Over half of EU funding is channelled through the 5 European structural and investment funds (ESIF). They are jointly managed by the European Commission and the EU countries. The purpose of all these funds is to invest in job creation and a sustainable and healthy European economy and environment. The ESIF mainly focus on 5 areas: ● research and innovation ● digital technologies ● supporting the low-carbon economy ● sustainable management of natural resources ● small businesses The 4 European structural and investment funds that are relevant for DiSSCo are as follow: European regional development fund (ERDF) – promotes balanced development in the different regions of the EU. European regional development fund (ERDF) European social fund (ESF) - supports employment-related projects throughout Europe and invests in Europe’s human capital – its workers, its young people and all those seeking a job. European social fund (ESF) Cohesion fund (CF) – funds transport and environment projects in countries where the gross national income (GNI) per inhabitant is less than 90% of the EU average. In 2014-20, these included Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Cohesion fund (CF) European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) – focuses on resolving the particular challenges facing EU's rural areas. European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD). 39 European structural and investment funds | European Commission (europa.eu) 68 4.2.2.2 Regional development & Cohesion European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 40 Objectives: To strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union by reducing economic, social and territorial disparities between its regions and supporting the full integration of less-developed regions within the EU’s internal market. The European Regional Development Fund supports investment, in particular, in innovation and research, the digital transition, SMEs, the environment and the net-zero-carbon economy. It also addresses economic, environmental and social problems in urban areas, with a special focus on sustainable urban development. In addition, it supports cooperation activities between regions in different Member States (under European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg)). European Territorial Cooperation - Interreg is a part of ERDF 41 : Interreg supports cooperation and collaboration across regions and countries, to develop joint services and strengthen solidarity. Interreg provides funding for projects between Member States, their outermost regions, the EU acceding countries and the neighbourhood countries. Interreg will support cross-border mobility, and efforts to develop environmental protection, emergency services, skilled jobs and access to public services for the next EU generation. There are several levels of cooperation within Interreg: ⮚ Interreg A - Cross-border cooperation European Cross-Border cooperation, known as Interreg A, supports cooperation between NUTS 42 III regions from at least two different Member States lying directly on the borders or adjacent to them. ⮚ Interreg B - Transnational cooperation – seems the most relevant for DiSSCo 40 European Commission Webpage : European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Programme website: European Regional Development Fund - Regional Policy - European Commission (europa.eu) 41 Interreg : European Territorial Co-operation - Regional Policy - European Commission (europa.eu) 42 NUTS Maps - NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics - Eurostat (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: ERDF allows for capital investment in ERICs, for building and equipment, for the construction and upgrading of facilities and in certain cases, to access the services proposed by ERICs. ERDF is relevant for branches of DiSSCo-ERIC at regional levels (e.g. local nodes), particularly in disadvantaged regions; Most relevant to DiSSCo seems to be the programme Interreg-B (part of European Territorial Cooperation). Specific funding possibilities for: Online training, research projects, new academic chairs, equipment and buildings. 69 Transnational cooperation, known as Interreg B, allows for cooperation over larger transnational territories or around sea basins. It involves national, regional and local programme partners in Member States, but also in some programmes, non-EU countries (third countries such as Iceland or Lichtenstein), Enlargement and Neighbourhood partner countries, and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), with a view to achieving a higher degree of territorial integration. Like all Interreg programmes, it aims at promoting better cooperation across countries within designated regions to find efficient solutions to common territorial, economic and social challenges, which are too broad to be dealt with efficiently at a national level. Interreg B supports a wide range of project investments related to innovation, the green and digital transition, accessibility, digitalisation, public sector innovation and interoperability etc. Interreg B particularly contribute to achieve the following goals: ● Innovation, especially networks of universities, research institutions, SMEs; ● Environment and climate change, especially sustainable green and blue economy, water resources, flood management; ● Digital connectivity and sustainable transport; ● Sustainable regional development, especially in terms of education, labour markets and cooperation; ● Cultural heritage and sustainable tourism development; ● Capacity building and governance; ● People-to-people actions and engagement. ⮚ Interreg Strand C: Interregional Cooperation The interregional cooperation strand aims at boosting the effectiveness of cohesion policy by promoting exchange of experiences, innovative approaches and capacity building between regions Types of funding: ERDF finances programmes in shared responsibility between the European Commission and national and regional authorities in Member States. The Member States' administrations choose which projects to finance and take responsibility for day-to-day management. Productive investments in enterprises, infrastructure and public policies across a range of topics; consultancy services and advice; studies. Funding is disbursed in the form of grants, procurements and financial instruments. Eligibility: Regional public and private entities, with special attention paid to disadvantaged regions and areas, notably rural areas and areas suffering from natural or demographic handicaps and outermost regions; and, indirectly, EU citizens, public or private organisations, and businesses. Programme duration: 2021-2027 Total budget 2021-2027: € 226.05 billion (current prices) 70 Cohesion Fund (CF) 43 Objectives: to strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU and its sustainable development by providing support to Member States with a gross national income per inhabitant below 90 % of the EU average (listed below). To strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU. The fund mainly contributes to investments in the field of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure made by public and regional authorities. The Cohesion Fund mainly focuses on capitalintensive environmental and transport investments. EU resources are predominantly used to support investments through grants. Types of funding: the Cohesion Fund is delivered through shared management. The co-legislators establish the legal framework and the level of funding and determine the allocations by Member State and category of region. The Commission adopts the operational programmes and cooperates with Member States’ administrations on the implementation. Funding is disbursed in the form of grants, procurements and financial instruments. 43 European Commission Webpage : Cohesion Fund (CF) Programme website: Cohesion Fund - Regional Policy - European Commission (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: relevant for national and local nodes in specific countries. Eligibility: Public and regional authorities in the following Member States: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia; and, indirectly, EU citizens, public organisations and businesses. Programme duration: 2021-2027 Total budget 2021-2027: € 48.03 billion (current prices), of which € 11.29 billion transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility 71 4.2.2.3 Investing in People, Social Cohesion & Values European Social Fund+ (ESF+) 44 ESF+ is a combination of four funds: the European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European Aid to the most Deprived (FEAD), the Youth Employment Initiative and the European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI). Objectives: the main instrument for investing in people, with the aim of building a more social and inclusive EU. Provide important contributions to the EU’s employment, social, education and skills policies. As part of the cohesion policy, the ESF+ will also continue its mission to support economic, territorial and social cohesion in the EU – reducing disparities between Member States and regions. The ESF+ supports the following: social innovation; investments in young people to help them find a qualification and a good-quality job and improve their education, training and lifelong learning; investments in capacity building and transnational/cross-border cooperation to strengthen fair working conditions, foster equal labour-market opportunities and enhance labour mobility. Studies, actions and training aimed at investing in people, creating and protecting jobs, promoting social inclusion, fighting poverty, and developing the skills needed for the digital and green transitions. ESF+ also includes: ESF Social Innovation+, which aims to facilitate the transfer and upscaling of innovative solutions to the societal challenges of today. Through supporting transnational cooperation, the initiative aims to expand best practices in fields including employment, education, skills and social inclusion across Europe. Types of funding: support under the ESF+ is implemented under shared management and indirect management. Funding is disbursed in the form of grants, procurements and financial instruments. 44 European Commission Webpage : European Social Fund+ (ESF+) Programme website: Home | European Social Fund Plus (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: relevant for DiSSCo’s education and skills aspects, particularly for national and local nodes. ESF+ can be used to recruit technicians, staffs in human resources, and staff to support high-technology training on digitization that will be proposed by DiSSCo. Eligibility: EU public and private organisations, non-governmental organisations, EU citizens, young people and children, people from vulnerable groups, etc. Programme duration: 2021-2027 Total budget 2021-2027: € 99.26 billion (current prices) 78 4.2.4 European Investment Bank (EIB) 53 EIB description and services: EIB has equity to directly finance a panel of companies, institutions, SMEs, projects, etc. EIB offers different types of products and services, detailed below and available here: What we offer (eib.org) Equity (eib.org) Access to the services are restricted to the projects that are in concordance with EIB’s priorities, that are listed below and also available at this website: Our priorities (eib.org) Figure 14 -Screenshot of EIB priorities 4.2.4.1 Details on EIB products relevant to DiSSCo Through member states and national agencies/ministries DiSSCo may beneficiate from advisory services 54 in 3 categories: - Strategic development: to offer strategic support to help promoters and beneficiaries to realise their projects both inside the EU and worldwide - Market development: to help clients define the parameters and specific needs of a sector, a region or a specific investment programme 53 Homepage: Homepage | European Investment Bank (eib.org) EIB contact link to request financial support: Contact us (eib.org) 54 Advisory services – Advisory services (eib.org) - Contact: Advisory Hub (eib.org) Relevance for DiSSCo: Advisory services are relevant financial products for DiSSCo. The programme InnovFIN is particularly relevant for RIs. Equity, guarantees, and loans are relevant financial instruments for DiSSCo. 79 - Project development: the EIB advisory services offers support preparing, structuring and implementing projects that are then funded by the EIB or by other financiers Services are available for public and private project promoters, in order to support project development and public authorities, improve access to finance and the business environment in general. Services include market and sector studies, to understand the needs of various industries and regions, and help clients conceive their strategy and hone their skills. EIB’s support also guides projects through the steps needed to secure financing, mobilising where necessary complex or ad-hoc financial solutions. 4.2.4.2 EIB InnovFIN programme 55 InnovFin Advisory support helps research and innovation (R&I) projects that face difficulties in securing finance, despite being fundamentally good projects. InnovFin Advisory guides its clients on how to structure their R&I projects in order to improve their access to finance. The service helps them to capitalise on their strong points and adjust elements such as their business model, governance, funding sources and funding structure to improve their access to finance. In the long run, this increases their chances of being implemented. InnovFin Advisory also provides advice to improve investment conditions through activities which are not project-specific. This includes things such as developing a business case for new financing mechanisms and preparing studies on increasing the effectiveness of financial instruments to address specific R&I needs. Eligibility: - Private sectors (large and small corporates, RDI clusters, industry associations, financial market associations etc.) - Public sector (European Commission, Member States, government agencies etc.) - Public-private and semi-public (research institutes, foundations, NGOs etc.) To be eligible for InnovFin Advisory a project must: require a minimum €15 million of R&I investment; Fit the policy objectives of Horizon Europe; and not yet be mature for financing appraisal. Contact for application: send request to innovfinad[email protected]rg including a detailed description of the project, including business plan highlights and the expected budget commitment. The European Commission provides approval of eligible projects. 55 Homepage: InnovFin Advisory (eib.org) Relevance for DiSSCo: Only advisory services are relevant for DiSSCo. Loans and guarantees products are allocated to states, government organisations, SMEs, financial institutions. Equity investing is dedicated to private & captive funds, or investment platforms sponsored by public sector. 80 4.2.4.3 Financial instruments: equity, guarantees, and loans 56 EU funding is available through a range of financial instruments implemented in partnership with public and private institutions. Under NextGenerationEU the Commission will borrow on the capital markets on behalf of the EU. Types of financial instruments: - equity and debt - loan guarantees and venture capital - capacity building and risk sharing facilities For example, the EU provides loans to businesses of all types for investment in research and innovation. It also provides guarantees to help beneficiaries to obtain loans more easily or at better conditions from banks and other lenders. The EU may also financially participate in a project by owning parts of it. Financial instruments can also be combined with grants. Financial instruments are implemented in partnership with public and private institutions such as banks, venture capitalists or angel investors. These financial institutions determine the exact financing conditions – the amount, duration, interest rates and fees. Funding under shared management with Member States: Financial instruments can be provided by the EU through financial intermediaries in Member States (shared management, see section I.2.2) to support its policies and programmes. Start-ups, micro companies, and larger businesses can all benefit from this type of funding. Funding under partnership with the European Investment Bank: The European Investment Bank offers loans, guarantees, equity investments and advisory services. Also called the “lending arm” of the European Union, it works closely with other EU institutions to support EU policies in over 140 countries around the world. The EIB Group is also in charge of implementing 75% of the InvestEU programme (see section II.1.1.1.2). It will bring together, under one roof, the European Fund for Strategic Investments and 13 EU financial instruments currently available. 56 Homepage: Financial instruments: equity, guarantees, and loans | European Commission (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: DiSSCo as an ERIC can request financial support to the European Investment Bank through different types of instruments that are listed below. 81 4.2.5 Transnational Access Scheme 57 Objectives: Transnational Access (TNA) programme enables scientists from various countries in Europe and beyond to use technological resources and expertise to enrich their projects with equipment and knowledge from specialised research sites/laboratories/observatories encompassed within ERICs. TNA covers access costs and most research costs. Travel and accommodation costs are also eligible. TNA can fund scientific and technological development. TNA is a true catalyst for ERIC Member State contribution to ERIC’s central budgets. TNA constitutes an attractive alternative source of funding for ERICs and ERICs’ users, especially TNA provides crucial supplementary funding for continuous sustainable development of ERICs (more services, access to new communities, etc). TNA is essential for ERICs to provide services to the research community for little or no cost; it can support the early stages of service provision; it can become a stable instrument for sustainable transnational access for European researchers. For ERIC’s that do not provide free access to their services, TNA can fund ERIC’s users to access their services, in such a case TNA funding is allocated on selection basis and evaluation of scientific merit. TNA also promotes cross-RI mobility, the use of services by industry, and expansion of access to RI’s services to other countries beyond the EU. We also note that a joint approach of ERICs and funding bodies through TNA has the potential to boost ERIC’s visibility and attractiveness for potential users. With TNA, researchers and research teams across Europe have the opportunity to submit project proposals to be selected to perform experiments. Access is granted on the basis of proposals which are reviewed and evaluated by the TNA Committee. The website RICH | Rich 2020 is a European network of National Contact Points for Research Infrastructures that facilitates transnational and virtual access to Research Infrastructures. Limitation: Member states of ERICs in development (without yet a common budget for the implementation of user projects) often experience a financial bottleneck with the Transnational Access Scheme. 57 European Commission Webpage: Access to European Research Infrastructures (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: DiSSCo’s central hub and users’ projects: access costs, research costs, scientific and technological development, funding of central budget by state members. 82 Appendix 5: overview, EU funding opportunities for DiSSCo EU funding Grants Financial instruments Trust funds Prizes Subsidies Public procurement contracts Direct management Shared management Indirect management Central Hub eligible National node eligible Local node eligible Users eligible Relevance for DiSSCo Horizon Europe High Horizon Europe: research infrastructure High Horizon Europe: Marie SklodowskaCurie Actions Moderate Horizon Europe: Reforming and enhancing the EU research and innovation system High Horizon Europe: Widening participation and spreading excellence Low Horizon Europe: Clusters - Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness High Horizon Europe: cofunded European Public-Public partnerships High 83 EU funding Grants Financial instruments Trust funds Prizes Subsidies Public procurement contracts Direct management Shared management Indirect management Central Hub eligible National node eligible Local node eligible Users eligible Relevance for DiSSCo European research council Low InvestEU Moderate Connecting Europe Facility High Digital Europe programme High European Regional Development fund Moderate Cohesion fund Low European Social Fund+ Low Erasmus + Low Creative Europe Low European agricultural fund for rural development Low Environment and climate action (LIFE) High Just Transition Fund Low 84 Appendix 6: alternative and non-EU funding sources According to the ESFRI white paperRef7, a joint effort combining European, national or other funding sources is vital for the healthy development of the pan-European Research Infrastructure ecosystem. Figure 15 - Figure showing some possibilities for non-European sources of funding that may be relevant for DiSSCo. Details for each theme are presented in the outlined section of this report. For ERICs to remain relevant throughout their entire lifecycle, scientific excellence is the condition sine qua non, which becomes, together with adequate human resources, crucial when it comes to longterm persistence in the operational phase. Effective governance and sustainable long-term funding (public and private) are other key elements for ensuring long-term sustainability of ERICs at every stage in their lifecycle. There is therefore a need for ERICs to find alternative sources of income, to insure their sustainable development and functioning. Several operational ERICs are in the phase of developing a sustainability plan that consists of developing strategies and activities to support the long-term sustainability of the ERIC. The sustainability plan can include: implementation of user strategy (access fee and commissioned services), training, development of economic activities by the ERICs, and the interaction with the private sector and added value for society. One of the ways to develop sustainability is to explore the diverse non-EU possible funding sources. This section of the report focuses on possible sources of non-EU funding that may be relevant for DiSSCo ERIC. One of the advantages of non-EU sources of funding is that they rely on DiSSCo creating connections and having discussions with all partners of society, including local partners, that will strengthen the relationships between the ERIC and local/national communities. 85 6.1 National and regional funding Consultation of the ERICs legal statutes and the legal framework for ERICsRef6 show that the main source of funding of ERICs is provided by the annual membership fees of the ERIC’s Member States. An ERIC can also access public research & innovation funding bodies in each of its Member States. The national and regional funding then come in coherence with, and in addition to, the Member State’s contribution to the ERIC’s central budget. Recognition and eligibility of ERICs for national and regional funding grants enhances their accessibility and boosts their attractiveness, therefore it is fundamental for ERICs to be eligible not only to the EU funding sources, but also to the national and regional funding which is available in member states in order to continue to broaden their services and supports. In return, ERICs will support national research by providing equipment, data, services and facilities to national universities and institutions, ultimately favouring a unification of research at the EU level. Limitation: The lack of knowledge of ERICs statutes (whether they are international or national organisations) by EU member states is a weakness that challenges ERICs applications to national and regional funding bodies, for which they commonly have to prove their eligibility. A second limitation to the access of ERICs to national and regional funding is the fact that these funds will support the development of cross-border projects, implying that research funded by a country could be hosted in a different country, which can represent a barrier to successfully securing national funding. Therefore, there is a need for harmonised positioning of EU member states regarding the status of ERICs. Types of funding: ERICs can access all national and regional funding streams within their member states. National and regional agencies can provide funding to ERICs, through cash or in-kind contributions (e.g. providing staff members). Relevance for DiSSCo: DiSSCo-ERIC will be enabled to apply to national and regional funding schemes in the countries of its Member States. An example of national funding to ERIC is from the EPOS-ERIC 2020 activity report: “The staff is guaranteed by three different funding sources, as illustrated in Table 2. First, according to the selected bid to host the legal seat of EPOS ERIC, personnel is seconded by INGV (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) as the Italian in-kind contribution (IKC). The bid foresees the provision of INGV permanent staff seconded to EPOS ERIC (Italian IKC) for a total cost of €291,000 that is part of the total Italian Host Premium (corresponding to €1,023,000). Second, personnel are hired by INGV (temporary positions) using funds from the Italian Host Premium and provided in-kind to EPOS ERIC. Third, the ECO staff is also composed of personnel hired directly by EPOS ERIC. The human resource plan for 2020 foresaw the hiring of 5 people (5 FTEs).” 86 Table 9 - Table from EPOS-ERIC 2020 annual report showing different financial sources for EPOS-ERIC Weblink to regional and national funding authorities: Managing authorities - Regional Policy - European Commission (europa.eu) ERICs need to collaborate with academics and industries to insure their sustainable development. One possible outcome of ERICs accessing national funding is that it will enable possible partnerships between the public and private sector. 87 6.2 European Partnerships: Public-Private partnerships 58 European partnership is part of Horizon Europe, but it is presented here as an alternative source of funding because it has been designed to facilitate the connection with European private funders (e.g. industries) and to develop implementation of public-private partnerships. Objective: European Partnerships bring the European Commission and private and/or public partners together to address some of Europe’s most pressing challenges through concerted research and innovation initiatives. They are a key implementation tool of Horizon Europe, and contribute significantly to achieving the EU’s political priorities. By bringing private and public partners together, European Partnerships help to avoid the duplication of investments and contribute to reducing the fragmentation of the research and innovation landscape in the EU. As stated in the ERIC forum policy brief 2022Ref5, Industry and SMEs companies collaborate with ERICs as users, suppliers and co-creators, benefitting from the expertise, technology development and access to an unprecedented large network of researchers. Access to the ERIC’s sophisticated expertise and instrumentation, usually at lower cost than through commercial services, particularly enhances the competitiveness of SMEs with limited capital funding. An ERIC may create an “Industry board” and employ a dedicated industry contact officer to support continuous engagement with Industry, organise joint events, increase visibility of the ERIC or support commercial users of ERIC’s services. 6.2.1 Co-Programmed European Partnerships (2021 – 2030) These are partnerships between the Commission and mostly private (and sometimes public) partners. The programme allows the Commission to work together with industry to boost investments in research and innovation and to overcome major climate and sustainability challenges, towards making Europe the first climate neutral economy. The partnerships will also deliver on the EU's digital ambitions for the next decade, Europe's Digital Decade, in line with the goals of the ‘twin' green and digital transitions. The implementation of Co-Programmed European Partnerships runs through the Horizon Europe work programmes and their calls for proposals. Each partnership provides the Commission with input on relevant call topics to be included in the work programmes. The grants resulting from these calls are fully funded by Horizon Europe. The private partners also develop additional activities, which are not funded through Horizon Europe, but which are included in the partnership's Strategic Research and Innovation Agendas. 58 Weblink: European Partnerships in Horizon Europe (europa.eu) Relevance for DiSSCo: DiSSCo national and local nodes, digitalization centres. European Partnerships include an area specifically dedicated to digitalization (The European Partnership for Key Digital Technologies (KDT), presented below) to support the digital transformation of all sectors of the economy and society. 94 Appendix 7: recommendations from D4.3 N° Description 1 All items of revenue and expenditure of an ERIC shall be included in estimates to be drawn up for each financial year and shall be shown in the budget (where revenues and expenditures shall be in balance). 2 Principles of sound financial management have to be implemented. 3 The key elements of an internal rules document on “financial rules” are: a. Framework: describe the ERIC in managerial summary; b. Financial management principles: repeat those from the ERIC regulation, the Statutes and add others specific to your RI; c. Financial year dates; d. Currency; e. Request and dates for the annual contributions: when shall members pay their contribution, received in one or in several instalments and at which dates; f. Interest rate to late contributions: how to deal with countries paying late or not at all; g. Detailed formula for the mandatory annual contributions if not described in the statutes; h. Rules to calculate membership fee for new members to join during the year: full membership fee or only parts, calculated from the month/quarter/half year; i. Reference to statistical sources for the formula ingredients: put in all those references needed for the calculation of the membership share and how you use them; j. Host country contribution/premium if not mentioned in the statutes: is it fixed by amount or percentage, how is it amended and/or evaluated; k. Value and evaluation rules for in-kind contributions: in case in-kind contributions are available describe the process how they will be estimated or calculated and how they are evaluated and decided if their value will be included in the accounts; l. How the draft budget is assembled and approved: who does what in preparing the budget and the contribution; m. Accounting principles and rules: do you follow international accounting rules (IFRS) or if national, why; n. Financial audits: how is the process of financial audits set up and by whom; 95 N° Description o. Principles of loans and bank overdrafts: who can draft loans and overdrafts approved by whom; p. Financial reporting: what shall be reported to whom and how; for a very good summary refer to the ERIC Forum Implementation Project Guidance document on accounting principles for ERICs; q. Duration of record keeping beyond the national rules: what are the national rules, and do you keep them longer? 4 Contribution rules should provide: - The method chosen shall be based on transparent, easy to acquire statistics and should make comparisons between countries possible; - a rule in case countries leave the ERIC; - The different countries’ share should be calculated according to their population size, economic power, number of potential users, R&D spending or shall be equal for all. - Can have minimal and maximal thresholds in numbers as well as a maximal % for an individual country. - Include a specific rule/% for the host country premium; - May include an automated adjustment for inflation; - Special clauses for high volume infrastructure/equipment (not of interest for DiSSCo). 5 For most countries, good statistics, both historically as well as current, are available from EUROSTAT, OECD.Stat and or World Bank Open Data 6 International organisations’ participation can be directly discussed during a GA meeting and shall not specifically be mentioned in the Statutes. 7 No rule needs to be written in the statutes in order to guarantee a minimum level of funding for the ERIC. 8 It is not recommended to start the ERIC with less than 5 countries. 9 For observers, there is no rule but it should be detailed in the statutes. It is realistic to ask ¼ to 1/3 of the full membership fee. If observers have the same rights to access the service, 1/3 can be appropriate. 10 Regarding the amount of the expected in-kind contribution, this is to be included in the service level agreements (SLAs). It is possible to foresee with annexes an annual basis on the agreed monetary equivalent on which the annual commitment is defined. 11 Budget cycles should not be specifically mentioned in the Statutes. Each year the budget is drafted and if the GA agrees on it, it is accepted. In the case of higher investments, it is possible to prepare a two to three years budget with details and share it with GA. 96 N° Description 12 A rule should be included in the statutes in order to clarify how it would work in the case a country joins the ERIC in the course of a year. There are two recommended options on that case: • The country has to pay from the month it joins the ERIC to the end of the year; • If the country joins the ERIC after the mid-year, it shall pay for the full annual membership fee, if it joins the ERIC after the mid-year, it shall pay 50% of the annual membership fee. In both cases, they commit their country for 5 years. Joining cannot be done on the date chosen but on the date after the GA or written procedure associated. It is very likely that the decision to welcome a new country will be taken during the GA. 13 It is not relevant to mention a financial penalty in case of early withdrawal in the statutes. There is already a rule in place in the case where a country leaves before the end of the first 5 years. A good option is to negotiate an early notification in case of leave. 14 There is no need to explain what the contributions will cover in the statutes. It is specified in the annual work programme attached with the annual budget. Both documents shall be approved by the General Assembly. 15 ERICs can obtain access to loans like any private company. The ERIC must demonstrate its bankability with the bank. The GA shall approve the loan. In the case of DiSSCo, the decision should be taken 10 years before the subscription to the loan. 16 Reserve authorisation will depend on the financial and monetary rules of the country with statutory seats. The rules will vary from one country to another. In some countries, ERICs are seen as a private organisation, therefore they should follow private financial rules. In others, they are seen as public institutions. Typically, in the European Union, public organisations are advised against establishing and keeping reserves. The same advice does not apply for the private sector. 17 Host premium shall cover 25% of the annual cost of the Central Hub Office. 18 Observers shall pay one third of full annual membership, based on the same factors as for members. 19 One Member State annual contribution shall not exceed 50% of total annual contributions to DiSSCo ERIC. 20 Use a specific consumer price index that has been developed within the EU: the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP). One possibility is either a fixed percentage or a flexible one using the last years published. This would mean either choosing one of the incorporation states (as most goods and services would be covered there) or an average of participating states (which will need to be recalculated with each new member) or the EU average. 97 N° Description 21 In order to streamline the indicators selected, DiSSCo ERIC national contributions can be calculated on the average GDP, population and GERD over 3 years. 22 The baseline (F) is set at 50,000 € per year. It means that each DiSSCo Member State should pay at least that amount of money. 23 It is important to make the distinction between the ERIC costs and the costs of the RI. The ERIC costs can be considered as fixed and centralised: the cost to run the Central Hub and provide the core services of the RI. The RI costs are larger and involve in-kind contributions from its members. The RI itself can be broadly defined as provisioning access to natural science collections in Europe. The costs to provide this access can be extensively large: from travelling to the field in order to collect new specimens, to digitising collections and preserving the collections in the long-term. This is mainly the responsibility of DiSSCo members, and the role of the ERIC will be to ease the connection between the demand for access and access providers. 24 If users request access to collections, without direct funding to member-institutions, then the prioritisation of requests would be at the discretion of the institution. It would have no obligation to the RI as its usual funding is linked to commitments with their national funders. Without additional funding from DiSSCo, the quality of services provided by its members under the RI would therefore depend on the alignment between the institution's strategy and the RI's strategy. 25 In the case of EU funding grouped applications, DiSSCo ERIC could lead the consortium and coordinate the response to the call for projects. As such, it would also be responsible for monitoring the allocation of funding and the progress of digitisation. 26 With WP8 results on specialisation plans, it would be possible to designate institutions with certain facilities, a certain type of collection, as the reference within the RI to provide specific services. They would then be designated as a centre of excellence and included in the list of services provided by the RI. 27 If the RI expects a high level of service, it is conceivable that SLAs setting the rules between the ERIC and its member-institutions could contain a financial commitment from the ERIC. It would describe the expectations on the services provided by the institution and in exchange they would receive funding. 28 The most relevant funding sources for DiSSCo-ERIC are from the EU Multiannual Financial Framework: Horizon Europe, Invest EU, Digital Europe Programme, and the European Regional Development Fund. Horizon Europe and its sub-programmes will be particularly relevant for DiSSCo. Other potentially important sources of funding for DiSSCo-ERIC will include the services provided by the European Investment Bank, especially the programme InnovFIN that is 98 N° Description particularly relevant for RIs, the advisory services that are financial products provided by the EIB that will be relevant for DiSSCo, and financial instruments equity, guarantees, and loans. 29 The Transnational Access Scheme is stated as a true catalyst for ERIC Member State contribution to ERIC’s central budgets, that can become a stable instrument for sustainable development of the ERIC, although limitations of use are reported for member states of ERICs in development. 30 Among the non-EU sources, the national and regional sources of funding should really be explored in each member state, since they have the potential not-only to fund DiSSCo ERIC, but also to make DiSSCo ERIC more visible, more accessible and to durably settle DiSSCo’s national and local nodes in the heart of the regions where they will be located. 31 Maximise the relationship between ERICs and stakeholders at the local, national and international levels is a recommendation of the EU to develop partnerships, particularly with the private sector. 99 REFERENCES All data on GDP, GERD and population are issued from EUROSTAT official website: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/ Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Available on: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=celex:32009R0723 ERIC Forum Policy Brief scaling-up research projects through erics: impact of big science on the research ecosystem, 2022. Available on: https://www.eric-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/ERICForum-Policy-Brief_2022.pdf ERIC Forum Policy Brief, Funding Models for Access to ERIC Multinational/Transnational Services; accessed on October 2022. Available on: https://www.eric-forum.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/ERIC-Forum_Policy-Brief.pdf ERIC Practical guidelines – Legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium, EC (2015). Available on: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c6647f05-874e4cdd-af70-22ade4759930 ESFRI WHITE PAPER, 2020. A new ambition for Research Infrastructures in the European Research Area. 37 p. Available on: https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/White_paper_ESFRI-final.pdf EUR-Lex. Available on: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en European Commission website. Available on: https://commission.europa.eu/index_en European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, The EU’s 2021-2027 long-term budget and NextGenerationEU : facts and figures, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. Available on: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2761/808559 French L, Livermore L, Alonso E, Casino A, Dusoulier F, Groom Q, Hardy H, Juslén A, Mergen P & Smith VS (2021) Procurement Strategy and Policy: DiSSCo Prepare WP 8 - Milestone 8.4. Available on: https://know.dissco.eu/handle/item/504 Guiraud M., (et al.). 2021 Deliverable report D4.5 "Models for government funding". Available on: https://know.dissco.eu/bitstream/item/511/1/DPP_WP4_D4.5%20Models%20for%20government %20funding.pdf Hardisty A. et al (2020) Conceptual design blueprint for the DiSSCo digitization infrastructure – Deliverable 8.1, DOI: 10.3897/rio.6.e54280 Landel, S.; Casino, A.; Guiraud, M. (2023) The Cost Book for DiSSCo. DiSSCo Prepare WP4 - D4.1. 100 Official Journal of the European Union, Council regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Available on: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0723&from=HR Pijls S. ; Leliaert F. ; Mergen P. ; Robertshaw S. Roadmap for the partnerships project within the EU PCP framework. DiSSCo Prepare WP 4, Milestone 4.4. Report from the commission to the European parliament and the council. Second Report on the Application of Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Available on: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/co m/2018/0523/COM_COM(2018)0523_EN.pdf#:~:text=Council%20Regulation%20%28EC%29%20N o%20723%2F2009%20on%20the%20Community,legal%20instrument%2C%20the%20European%2 0Research%20Infrastructure%20Consortium%20%28ERIC%29. Scory S., Paleco C., et al. DiSSCo Prepare Milestone 7.1, “Analysis of the legal entity models and their suitability for achieving DiSSCo objectives”