Minerals4EU - Agreed scope of the minerals intelligence network

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe

Deliverable 2.1

Agreed Scope of the Minerals Intelligence Network

Title of the project: Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe – Minerals4EU

Grant Agreement number: 608921

Funding Scheme: FP7-NMP-2013: 4.1-3 –CSA (COORDINATING)

Start date: 01.09.2013

Duration: 24 months

Document title: Agreed Scope of the Minerals Intelligence Network

Workpackage: WP2

Author(s): Compiled by David Ovadia / Luca Demicheli

Date of delivery: 28.11.2014

Dissemination level: PU1

Reviewed by: WP2 Partners

Status of the document: Final Document location: Folder: Minerals4EU/Deliverables

Project web site: http://www.minerals4eu.eu

1 PU=public, PP= Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services),

RE= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services), CO= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

http://www.minerals4eu.eu/


Contents 1. Revision History .............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Terms-of-reference (concept for aims of the Network) ................................................................. 2

3. Task definitions ............................................................................................................................... 3

4. Position of WP2 Partners ................................................................................................................ 3

Table 1 – Key features ..................................................................................................................... 4

5. Scope for the Structure of the Permanent Network ...................................................................... 6

6. Working assumptions for the Permanent Network ........................................................................ 7

7. Developing the scientific and technological objectives of the network, and building a durable

integration. ............................................................................................................................................. 8

8. Defining the main lines and timetable of network activities for the whole duration of the

Minerals4EU project ............................................................................................................................... 9

9. Maintaining the relevance of the network to the objectives of the Minerals4EU project ........... 10

10. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 10

1 Work Package 2: Sustainable Minerals Intelligence Network November 2014


1. Revision History Due to a series of unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, the finalisation of Deliverables 2.1 and 2.2 of the Minerals4EU Project was delayed. The consortium Partners involved in Work Package 2 (WP2), responsible for those Deliverables, agreed to take corrective measures in order to submit a preliminary version of the two documents to the Minerals4EU Project Manager for subsequent forwarding to the European Commission (EC) by 23rd October 2014. This date was selected to allow the Directors of the Geological Surveys of Europe to deliberate on their content during the EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) General Meeting on 21st October 2014, before the submission of the final versions of the Reports to the EC. The EGS Directors endorsed the preliminary drafts at that meeting, with a few comments that have now been incorporated in this Report.

This document is therefore a longer and revised version (final draft) of the preliminary report prepared by the Drafting Team and reviewed by all WP2 Partners, enabling it to be sent in its final form to the EC via the Project Coordinator on 28th November 2014.

It should be noted that, although the Deliverable is submitted to the European Commission on 28th November 2014, there are several aspects of it that remain work-in-progress because the nature of the project implies continuous interactions and consultations with EC services and external stakeholders, as well as with the project partners themselves. Evolving boundary conditions might also influence the content. All partners however agree and understand that fundamental modifications will not be possible after the formal submission to the EC, unless specifically recommended by the EC itself.



2. Terms-of-reference (concept for aims of the Network)2

The Network is intended to be a permanent system with a well-defined organisational structure, as part of, and at least delivering the first building block, and preferably the future hub, of the European Minerals Knowledge Base – as part of the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials (EIP RM). The Network can comprise a single physical entity or a “hub and spoke” system of a physical entity and a network of remote cooperating centres, or any combination thereof. For the purposes of this Report, which focusses on the scope of such as system, we refer hereafter to a “Network” to encompass all options, the components of which are detailed in Deliverable 2.2 which focuses on its structure. Whatever its structure, it will require a clear dialogue and agreements to be in place between the network operators, the suppliers of raw or processed data on which the network depends, and the minerals expertise on raw material supply and demand, and beyond. The main suppliers of data are WP4 on mineral statistics, aiming to develop the structure and datasets for a European Minerals Yearbook, and WP5 on Minerals4EU Knowledge data platform, aiming to develop an operational information and intelligence management system fully compliant with INSPIRE. Therefore the data which they can generate will form the backbone of the data flow.

The Network is very dependent upon good links to the partners in WP4, WP5 and WP6, especially after Minerals4EU ends. The fact that in the course of the project the majority of the data providing partners are Geological Surveys, and that they are already represented through EuroGeoSurveys, suggests that it will not be difficult to obtain guarantees on data on supply for primary resources. The exact nature of the data, concerning mineral and metal primary and secondary resources, on land and the marine environment, and supply and demand data, will be defined by Minerals4EU and the potential Network partners.

A number of aspects to be considered in this task, and reported here and in Deliverable D2.2, include:

Providing a description of the resources and capacities to be integrated and how a durable integration is intended to be achieved, including an organisational structure;

Developing the scientific technological and operational objectives of the network;

Developing an appropriate legal outline as basis for further data transmission and product supply particularly to third parties;

Defining the main lines and timetable of network activities for the whole duration of the Minerals4EU project;

Maintaining the relevance of the network to the objectives of the Minerals4EU project and to the wider context of the EIP RM and the European Minerals Knowledge Base.

2 Source - Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe, Grant agreement no: 60892, Annex 1 Description of Work

(modified selectively)



3. Task definitions

To build up a minerals information and intelligence provision service, incorporating links to existing projects, relevant databases and auxiliary datasets of Geological Surveys and other relevant institutions consisting of mineral data from primary and secondary resources on land and the sea-floor.

To develop the concept of the network structure and implement it, enabling the Network to deliver the products proposed, such as the information system, the European Minerals Yearbook and the foresight study, and to provide regular updates.

To develop a network which connects national, sub-national and European mineral datasets and information, taking into account existing initiatives, policies and directives, as well as relevant projects and users’ demands, by considering an impact analysis from a broad stakeholders’ consultation.

To establish permanence of the Network to guarantee its sustainability in the long term, for the on-going and provision of Minerals4EU products and services for all potential stakeholders.

The second and the last of these bullet points are the main focus of the work of WP2 and the subject of this and subsequent WP2 Deliverable Reports.

4. Position of WP2 Partners

The WP2 Partners met to discuss these matters, inter alia, in Paris (November 2013), Nicosia (March 2014), Copenhagen (June 2014) and Dublin (October 2014). Partners have submitted their individual position statements and concepts. The Industrial Consultation Committee and several other key stakeholders were also regularly consulted. Inevitably there are some mutually conflicting features and various opinions on such matters as membership levels and eligibility, which the drafting team has resolved through compromise and by presenting alternative options where possible, although certain of these issues remain open pending further discussion with the EC in particular. The Partners’ positions are summarised in Table 1, Key Features, which is used as the basis to define the functions, structure and funding of the proposed Network.



Table 1 – Key features3 Significance of feature: ***** very strongly supported by the Partners **** supported by most of the Partners *** supported by some of the Partners only ** generally not supported by the Partners (or affects few of them) * un-supported by most of the Partners

Feature

Significance Comments

1 Potential members and stakeholders should include but not be limited to EuroGeoSurveys and its members and other Geological Surveys, other public bodies, government agencies, academics, universities, and major mining and exploring companies and/or their trade associations

****

1

2 Not all the Geological Surveys are in a position to make data available to the Minerals4EU Network because of legal barriers or the Survey is not the owner of the data or does not have the rights to distribute the data.

**

2

3 A Permanent Network is needed to ensure post-project sustainability

*****

3

4 The Permanent Network requires long term funding from the EC as a major stakeholder

*****

4

5 The Permanent Network should derive funding (in cash or in kind) from members / associate members

**

5

6 The Permanent Network may derive co-funding from commercial activities, including data licensing, although the basic digital data should be free

***

6

7 The Permanent Network to build on existing expertise and infrastructures

***

7

8 The Permanent Network to receive support from and be linked to EGDI and EGS

****

8

9 The Permanent Network to pay (some) contributions to Geological Surveys for staffing and other in-kind inputs

*

9

10 IPR issues – ownership rights to be respected

**

10

11 Staff to be on secondment / rotated from Geological Surveys

**

11

12 Physical location (probably Brussels) not a virtual network

***

12

13 The Permanent Network to have an independent legal status

*

13

3 In categorising the “key features” we have brought together a range of detailed suggestions under a single heading.



Comments on the Partner Positions

1. There is an on-going discussion on whether or not there should be two levels of membership, core and associate, and if so, whether or not core membership should be restricted to Geological Surveys only or should include certain organisations whose competency goes beyond that of the Surveys. It is generally agreed that members are those formally/legally responsible for collecting and delivering the data at the national level in cooperation with any other institutions/organisations necessary to fulfil this obligation. Those who substantially contribute to minerals intelligence provision service may be core members. We note the pertinent references to this in the Project DoW4.

2. Legal or operational barriers prevail which will need to be addressed with the appropriate authorities. This may take some considerable time and will be an on-going task for the Permanent Network.

3. Even when not mentioned explicitly, this feature appears to have near-universal support; however the size, shape and structure of such a body are subject to various opinions.

4. Even when not mentioned explicitly, this feature appears to have near-universal support. Initial estimates for the EC funding requirement vary between €2m / year and €6m / year, but the amount is subject to more detailed planning.

5. Various opinions, for example some suggest membership fees from National Geological Surveys in addition to in-kind contributions but most favour only in-kind contributions from National Geological Surveys, although the exact nature of the contributions is yet to be defined.

6. Commercial income does not necessarily imply making a profit – several Partners make the point that it must be not-for-profit (linked to the legal status of these Geological Surveys).

7. Building on existing expertise and experience is implicit however detailed planning is required on how these will be assessed and quantised in terms of contributions.

8. Basic assumption exists of links with the European Geological Data Infrastructure (EGDI). The

EGS Directors deliberated that M4EU must be linked to EGDI but, in consideration of the de-synchronisation of the two initiatives, it should proceed for the time being as a separate legal entity feeding the EGDI.

9. The amount of in-kind contributions will be a subject of further discussion as some Geological Surveys cannot ensure them under the current mandate and some payments from the Permanent Network for inputs, financed by the EC funding, might be required.

10. No detail yet available but a basic assumption of background rights staying with originator and foreground rights with The Permanent Network.

11. Suggestions for the number of (full-time equivalent) staff in the Permanent Network range from 3 to 12 excluding the management and advisory boards.

4 Page 6 of the DoW states: “Initially the consortium will form the members of the network, but later organisations

other than Geological Surveys will be recruited to the network, including industry, academics, platforms, NGOs and regulators”. Further: “Initially the network membership will be from the consortium, since the members are those supposed to be the data owners at EU level, and which in fact comprises mainly the Geological Surveys and other key EU players, including all the main European raw materials industry associations (EUROMINES, IMA, EUROMETAUX and UEPG), which have already agreed to sit in the project Industrial Consultation Committee. However this is too restrictive in terms of input and scope. Selection of suitable members is therefore a key issue in this task, and also for this reason close exchanges of information and recommendations will be kept with all the relevant DGs interested, especially EUROSTAT and DG ENTR, during the whole project duration.”



12. Several Partners propose a hub-and-spoke option with a small central office and distributed expertise, as being more cost-effective than a large central office, although many are in favour of a critical mass of expertise and facilities in one central location.

13. Various examples and precedents for this have been identified. The EGS Directors agreed that M4EU should be based at the EuroGeoSurveys premises, however it is clarified that EGS would offer the legal registration and physical site, while operations can be carried out elsewhere (including via a distributed system) where there is the best capacity and where the most cost-effective and practical conditions exist.

5. Scope for the Structure of the Permanent Network

Table 1, which reflects the positions of the Partners, exposes some significant fault lines in how they see the structure and functions of the Permanent Network, although there is unanimous support that there should be such a Body and that Partners would support it.

At the fundamental level, all Geological Surveys and some of the other Partners are funded or part-funded by the government of their country to provide a public good service which, in this context, includes inter alia the provision of data, information and expertise to support and develop the mining and industrial sectors of their country. Whilst this is widely recognised to be an obligation on the Survey, there is a debate as to how much of the inherent cost should be borne from baseline national budgets as opposed to specific funds provided by the EC, and to what extent commercial income can offset the costs of the Permanent Network. In particular, there is a need to clarify the cost and investment involved in developing such a service, and the additional cost involved (beyond such EU level obligations as INSPIRE) in harmonising such national services on a European level. Whilst the latter investment is quite small compared to the former one, it needs additional funding.

There is no intention that any of the Partners should pay into the Permanent Network in terms of cash contributions, but it is implicit that all should make in-kind contributions including, but not limited to, staff time, data, expertise and facilities. However, the debate exists on the quantum of such contributions and the extent that they are paid for by the Permanent Network, if at all. The detailed business plan for the Permanent Network will need to address the amount of in-kind contribution expected from each Partner, perhaps linked to national GDP or GNP, and how the contributions will be valued, whilst noting that the core running costs of the Permanent Network which are essentially supra-national will be a call on a combination of EC, commercial and possibly national public funding.

Whilst there is currently a high level of support from the WP2 Partners for the Permanent Network, it is essentially a coalition of the willing which potentially could fragment through time if national policies change or budget restrictions apply. To this extent, and in the absence of an EU policy or position requiring participation, it will be necessary for informal pressure to be brought onto the participating governments by the EC, possibly through the EIP RM, to ensure the continuation of cooperation at the agreed levels. This underlines the importance of setting up the Permanent Network with an agreed and sustainable structure and business model, and in a way that commands near-universal support.



6. Working assumptions for the Permanent Network

Taking the aforementioned into account and based on Table 1, the working assumptions for the Permanent Network can therefore be specified. They are:

That membership will be open to institutions which can contribute to the scope of the Permanent Network, namely the Geological Surveys (EuroGeoSurveys and it members as well as of others), , other public bodies, government agencies, academics, financial institutions, traders, European and national associations and mining and exploration companies and mineral downstream industries represented individually and/or through their industry association (e.g. Euromines, Eurometaux, IMA-Europe, UEPG, etc.)

The Permanent Network will have a legal status, the exact details of which are yet to be determined.

There could be (at least) two different levels of membership, core and associate. Core members will be from the Geological Surveys and may include other institutions who substantially contribute to minerals intelligence provision service, subject to the agreement of the Partners5 and the EC. Geological Surveys or their equivalent will be responsible for coordinating the long term supply, sharing and integration of national data, information and expertise within their domain, be it their own or derived from other public bodies, government agencies, academics, universities etc. Associate members will be other interested parties, including regular users of the system. Some of these might have roles to play in an advisory board. Whilst the majority of the core members will be the National Geological Surveys, there could be other organisations whose competency extends beyond that of the Surveys. Thus the Body will not simply be a duplication of EuroGeoSurveys, but an entity that goes beyond that remit and has a specific focus that still requires accurate definition.

Core members only will have governance rights, equivalent to shareholders of a company, in that they will elect a governing body, equivalent to a board of directors, which will have overall control of the strategy, objectives and tasks of the Permanent Network, according to the legal status and its Articles of Association. Representatives of Associate members (or non-member institutions) can be invited by the governing body to act as non-voting advisors.

Baseline, long term funding for the Permanent Network should be sought from the EC, amounting to at least 50% of total operating and maintenance costs. Core members will be expected to contribute in-kind support, including but not limited to staff time (whether at home-base on via secondment to the Permanent Network), travel expenses, data, information, expertise, consumables and technology. The quantum of in-kind support will be determined for each core member by the governing body to be approximately in line with the amount of data and expertise services available to be contributed by that core member. The total of in-kind support will amount to 50% of the full operating costs less the realistic estimates of additional funding, as described below.

As the success of the Mineral Intelligence Network will rely to a significant extent on the continued provision of accurate and up-to-date minerals data through national sources,

5 A poll is currently underway to obtain the opinion of Partners on this question.



which is likely to largely rely on in-kind contributions from national organisations, this provision should be arranged through a system of service level agreements or similar (e.g. “framework contract structure”).

Additional funding will be sought from a combination of associate membership fees, licence fees and value-added data products and services, on the basis that the Permanent Network will remain strictly not-for-profit and will not compete directly with any governmental or commercial interest, respectively, of any core member.

The Permanent Network will be a physical entity located in Brussels. For pragmatic reasons it is likely to be co-located at, and integrated into EuroGeoSurveys. It is expected to have an initial employed staff of at least three full time equivalent posts, one of whom will have the role of Chief Executive, and will have access to experts and technical expertise located in core and associate member organisations and their related projects. In particular, it will closely link with the developing EGDI. The governing body will have the discretion to change the staff complement and/or to fund activities off-site, whether by secondment from members or otherwise, according to the levels of activity and available funding.

The Permanent Network will ensure that legal safeguards are in place to protect the background IPR of its members and the foreground IPR of the Permanent Network.

7. Developing the scientific and technological objectives of the

network, and building a durable integration.

The main inputs with regard to content (data, technology, expertise) to the Permanent Network during and immediately following the Minerals4EU project will come from the Work Packages WP4, WP5, and WP6.

WP4 – whose objectives are to:

Enhance data-gathering ability through the creation of a sustainable network of key organisations;

Undertake a data-gathering exercise for primary and secondary raw materials, including production and trade data, and estimates of resource availability;

High-level assessment of data availability and quality for primary and secondary raw materials and identification of key knowledge gaps;

Produce a ‘European Minerals Yearbook’.

WP5 – whose objectives are:

To develop an operational data management distributed system which is fully INSPIRE compliant.

The architecture will be developed as an effective and lasting system designed for welcoming various datasets related to minerals raw materials, for facilitating data updates and maintenance, and for facilitating their visualization and their use.



WP6 – whose objectives are:

To produce a first foresight study on raw materials supply and demand in the EU with special attention given to critical minerals.

To build a sustainable network of competent partners as the base for future collaboration on topics related to supply and demand of mineral raw materials

These Work Packages will, when completed, provide the initial databases, technology, knowledge platforms and documents on which they will reside, and form – together with additional organisations – an initial list of partners (members) of the Permanent Body.

Post-project, it will be an on-going task of the established Permanent Body to update periodically the data, technology and run the operational procedures, in line with availability of staff, principally from the core members, according to the membership structure and operating

procedures of the Permanent Body (see deliverable D2.2), but also on the need by the clients.

8. Defining the main lines and timetable of network activities

for the whole duration of the Minerals4EU project

This Report reflects the outcome of the debate on the general shape, size, structure and funding of the Permanent Network and marks the start of the detailed planning and implementation phase.

The key actions that must follow, within the next six months, include:

Final decisions on the various (but restricted and generally inter-linked) options presented in this Report; the restrictions and inter-linkages will be worked out explicitly in order to enable informed decisions.

Investigation of options for legal status leading to a decision and legal incorporation as appropriate.

In-depth discussions with the EC and potential core and associate members (once determined) on structure and membership criteria, post-project funding and other obligations, leading to the drafting and signing of Term Sheets. These discussions will be informed by a detailed business and market analysis to determine the realistic amounts of external funding that can be secured.

All necessary plans for setting up the Permanent Network some time (minimum of 3 months) before the end of the Minerals4EU project, to include membership contracts, election of the governing body, rules for the appointment of a Chief Executive and roadmap for first phase staff complement, securing office accommodation and equipment, porting the data and technology and thorough system testing (Beta versions) prior to a well-publicised “go-live” date and launch event to coincide with the Minerals4EU project end.



9. Maintaining the relevance of the network to the objectives of

the Minerals4EU project

It is very important that the Permanent Network is set up, and evolves through time, to remain relevant to the needs of its users. Separate but linked project activities, including the exploitation plan and stakeholder consultations, will ensure that feedback is received, and acted upon, by the governing body. The roles of associate members who represent industry, research, financial services and governments is particularly important to ensure that the Permanent Network is guided towards a powerful service and maximises the usefulness of its data, products, and services. Once the Permanent Network has been fully set up, a significant Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of the Chief Executive will be end-user satisfaction, measured in terms of data relevance, service quality and value-for-money, as well as stakeholder engagement, awareness and adoption.

10. Conclusions

After a lengthy debate amongst the Partners, and with full support of the Directors of the

Geological Surveys, it is agreed and proposed that:

A Permanent Network is necessary, long term and sustainable.

Its core members will include parties who contribute substantially to the Permanent

Network based on agreed criteria.

Its associate members may include parties with minor contribution or otherwise

interested parties including industry, government, academia and elsewhere.

It needs baseline funding from the EC.

Core members will contribute in-kind.

Commercial income may be possible.

It is likely6 to be co-located at EuroGeoSurveys where it will share facilities and

expertise but will not duplicate its functions or those of its members.

It will have legal status and employ a small number of staff who may be drawn as

seconded from members (if these are public institutions).

It should be set up at least three months before the Minerals4EU project terminates.

6 Subject to proper cost-benefit analysis

Documents

Minerals4EU - Agreed scope of the minerals intelligence network