1 / 11

Structural Funds for e-Infrastructure development: opportunities and challenges

Structural Funds for e-Infrastructure development: opportunities and challenges. Lajos Balint, NIIFI/Hungarnet <lajos.balint@niif.hu>. TNC BoF on Using Structural Funds in the domain of Research and Education Networks: Past experience and Future prospective Dublin, 19 May 2014.

bettyc
Download Presentation

Structural Funds for e-Infrastructure development: opportunities and challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Structural Funds for e-Infrastructure development:opportunities and challenges Lajos Balint, NIIFI/Hungarnet <lajos.balint@niif.hu> TNC BoF onUsing Structural Funds in the domain of Research and Education Networks: Past experience and Future prospective Dublin, 19 May 2014

  2. A bit of history 2007-13: FP7 50B€ + SF slowly entering RI (HU: ~20 M€ for e-RI) 2011-12: Horizon2020 (FP8!)/MFF preparations: ”RI funding by SF only (!)” Background: SF serves infrastructure developments (road, rail, energy … infocomm.) 2013-14: joint handling of R&D and RI – – harmonised FW+SF (ESIF) funding ~80B€ Horizon2020 + ~100 B€ SF! (7 years) Umbrella / framework: ERA

  3. 2014-2020 status: e-Infrastructure is key component of the European Research Area (mobility, openness, RI, joint programs, global hub …) Distributed / integratedresources in the ERA (humans, funds, tools, info) Exceptional role of e-Infrastructures (glue): e-RI →RI →R →R&D →R&D&I →Competitiveness … Widely recognised role, function, importance !

  4. Supportive treatment – chances of sustainability e-Infrastructures: high priority (both EU & MS) ! (but still low R&D spending wrt. GDP levels) Cost side: Maglaris model - 1:10:100 (100M€ … 1B€ … 10B€/yr in RN!) (~20% CAPEX and ~80% OPEX: good assumption) Financial resources: Horizon2020 + SF + MS funds + PPP + users Scenarios: weakening – sustaining – strengthening Sustainability: by strengthening only =fly or die (political/legal/technical + organisation + expertise + funding!)

  5. Some remarkable figures MFF plan vs. Maglaris assumptions(0,1 : 1 : 10 B€ / yr) (business modelneeded:costs & resourceslevels / structure) Assumption here: <2% Horizon2020, <20% MS, >80% SF, <2% PPP for RI MFF:SF/yr ~ 100B€/7 ~15B€ RI → 5 B€ e-RI→1,5 B€RN e-RI / RI ratio (FP7): 0,57/1,72 B€ RN/e-RI ratio (FP7): 27% (HPC 37%, VRE 15%, Data 21%) Compare1,5 B€/yr SF for RN with Maglaris’ 10 B€/yr cost: SF covers 15% of full annual RN cost: close to ”optimum” (Optimum is around 20 / 80 % in case of 4-5 years life-span) (Difference to be covered by Horizon2020, MS, PPP funds) Practice:somewhat different but can be improved! (eg. NIIFI)

  6. The NIIFI case NIIFI developments on SF basis in 2009-2012 ~ 20 M€ •DWDM on DF •HPC •Cloud •Storage •VC •middleware …

  7. The NIIFI case – the figures NIIFI case: (~ 1 % of everything): → 150 M€/yr SF for RI from MFF assumably available → ~50 M€/yr for e-Infrastructure, ~15 M€/yr for RN NIIFI e-RI development projects on SF basis (e-RI !): Finished (2009-12): ~2 x 10 M€ (e-Infrastructure, Edu applications) Running (2014-16): ~2 x 5 M€ (HPC/1, Edu applications) Coming (2015-18): ~4 x 10 M€ (EduCloud, HPC/2, DCH, Edu apps…) Maglaris model: NIIFI ~1M€/yr GEANT →~ 100 M€/yr RN (i.e.VM on NIIFI / yr: 20 M€ CAPEX + 80 M€ OPEX in RN, 3x in e-RI) Successful period – but not yet exploiting the opportunities! (< 50 %!) Fast widening/expansion is needed! (not only in Hungary) Problem:expert workforce (developer, operator, broker, advisor …)

  8. Conclusions: Fundinge-RI development: no more a bottleneck! NRENs should discuss: - how to best exploit the SF opportunities - how to convince/ motivate MS governments NRENs should consider: - Vertical & horizontal extension: increasing SF need! - Greening, innovation, PCP: also increasing SF need! Specific issue wrt. EC rules on regional useof SF: higher priority of convergence regions Major issues needing NREN move: expert workforce +business model+ CAPEX / OPEX issue

  9. Closing comments: • Some figures may somewhat be incorrect • There are a lot of question marks (eg. MS attitudes) but • Attractive opportunities – demanding challenges … • A new situation: no lack but abundance of funds • A promising future … • Are we ready? • Let’s try to do our best to exploit the SF option – • for the benefit of the widest possible community !

  10. Explanatory addition wrt. NRENs’ opportunities: A Summary Table of the annual rough averages [M€]: * OPEX included ** NRENs to estimate their share – and start planning / negotiating …

  11. Last minute addition on the OPEX issue: ”Broadband State-Aid Rules …” (DG-CNECT / wik draft): ”[SF (ESIF)] … to cover (part of) the end users’ costs of installation or purchase of broadband devices, or of monthly subscription … [de minimis: <66 K€ / user / yr]” A tool for transition to a good business model?

More Related