L i n k S C E E M Linking Scientific Computing in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean
N ETWORK STUDY FINDING S
DELIVERABLE D11
Document identifier: LinkSCEEM_D11_v07
Date: 31/01/2010
Work Package: WP5: Network Study
Lead Partner: GRNET
Document status: Final Draft
Document link:
This document describes the findings of the network study, which aims at documenting the comparative analysis of alternative solutions for providing regional interconnectivity between the Eastern Mediterranean countries and their linking to Cyprus. The commercial use of any information contained in this document may require a license from the proprietor of that information. It is not guaranteed that use of the included information is free from risk and no liability for loss or damage suffered by any person using this information can be accepted.
Copyright (c) Members of the LinkSCEEM Project. The LinkSCEEM (―Linking Scientific Computing in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean‖) project is funded by the European Commission. For more information on the project please see the website http://www.linksceem.eu/ You are permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document containing this copyright notice, but modifying this document is not allowed. You are permitted to copy this document in whole or in part into other documents if you attach the following reference to the copied elements: "Copyright (C) 2008. Members of the LinkSCEEM Project". The information contained in this document represents the views of the LinkSCEEM as of the date they are published. The LinkSCEEM does not guarantee that any information contained herein is error-free, or up to date.
THE LinkSCEEM PROJECT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, BY PUBLISHING THIS DOCUMENT. Delivery Slip
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 2
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Name Partner / Date Signature Work Package
From
Reviewed by
Approved by
Document Log Issue Date Comment Author 0.1 21/8/2008 Table of Contents Fotis Karayannis
0.2 27/10/2008 First draft Fotis Karayannis 0.3 28/10/2008 Inclusion of content in Section 4 Fotis Karayannis 0.4 5/02/2009 Contribution to Sections Yannis Mitsos, Tryfon Chiotis Total review and almost total 0.5 24/07/2009 Spiros Livieratos, Yannis Mitsos rewriting 0.6 21/12/2009 Final draft Spiros Livieratos, Yannis Mitsos Spiros Livieratos, Yannis Mitsos, 0.7 31/12/2009 Reviewed Final Draft Bruno Rostand, Alan O‘Cais
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 3
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 Purpose of the document 7
1.2 References 7
1.3 Document amendment procedure 7
1.4 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 8
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
3 LINKSCEEM COMMUNITY NETWORKING NEEDS 11
4 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS 13
4.1 Existing Submarine Cables 13 4.1.1 Cyprus-Syria 14 4.1.2 Cyprus-Lebanon 15 4.1.3 Cyprus-Jordan 16 4.1.4 Cyprus-Israel 17 4.1.5 Cyprus-Palestine 18 4.1.6 4.1.6 Cyprus-Egypt 18 4.1.7 Cyprus-Europe 19 4.1.8 Cyprus-Turkey 21 4.1.9 Syria-Lebanon (BERYTAR) 21 4.1.10 Syria-Egypt (ALETAR) 21 4.1.11 FLAG (FEA) 21
4.2 PLANNED Submarine Cables 23 4.2.1 HAWK 23 4.2.2 IMEWE 23 4.2.3 MENA 24 4.2.4 Other Relevant Announcements 24
4.3 Traditional Terrestrial Interconnectivity 26
4.4 Alternative optical Infrastructures 29 4.4.1 Jordan 30 4.4.2 Egypt 31 4.4.3 Syria 31 4.4.4 Lebanon 32 4.4.5 The Palestinian Authority 32 4.4.6 General remarks 33
4.5 GLORIAD 33
5 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY COSTS 36
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 4
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
5.1 Bandwidth Procurement schemes and Competition Overview 36 5.1.1 Bandwidth Procurement 36 5.1.2 Competition Overview 36
5.2 Bandwidth Pricing – The EUMEDCONNECT Experience 37 5.2.1 Pricing Facts and Assumptions 39 5.2.2 Topologies 40
5.3 Comparative analysis 43
6 FUNDING AND POLITICAL ASPECTS 44
6.1 EC policy overview 44 6.1.1 The EU funding schemes 45 6.1.2 Mixing EU funding sources 45 6.1.3 How to identify and seize an opportunity for complementary funding 47 6.1.4 The checklist 48
6.2 Funding Opportunities 50 6.2.1 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) 50 6.2.2 Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) 50 6.2.3 The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) 51 6.2.4 European Investment Bank 51 6.2.5 World Bank 51 6.2.6 International Development Association (IDA) 51 6.2.7 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 51 6.2.8 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 51 6.2.9 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 52
6.3 European Neighbourhood Policy 52 6.3.1 Overview 52 6.3.2 Structure and implementation 57 6.3.3 Recommendations 64
6.4 INTERREG IVC 65
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68
APPENDIX : COUNTRY BRIEFS 72
1 Cyprus 72
2 Egypt 73
3 Jordan 74
4 Israel 75
5 Lebanon 76
6 Palestinian Authority 78
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 5
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
7 Turkey 78
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 6
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document describes the findings of the network study, which aims at documenting the comparative analysis of alternative solutions for providing regional interconnection of the Eastern Mediterranean countries and their linking to Cyprus. In addition, it aims at investigating potential funding sources for the regional network, as well as interacting with the EUMEDCONNECT Mediterranean partners.
In Section 2 an Executive Summary can be found presenting the main goals of the project in subject. Section 3 summarises the first findings with regards to the scientific communities needs per country as evaluated by WP2 (Assessment of needs), focusing on the identification of communities that would be requiring to use the CaSToRC facility and their networking needs. Section 4 presents the regional connectivity options mainly between Cyprus and the Middle East countries. Section 4 is structured so that the connectivity options are presented as follows: Submarine cables around Cyprus and in the region, traditional terrestrial connectivity, alternative optical infrastructures (fiber over power lines). Current connectivity costs are outlined in Section 5 as well as two indicative network scenarios. In Section 6 an overview of the potential funding sources and the related political aspects can be found, while in Section 7 the main conclusions and recommendations are presented. Country briefs are included in the Appendix.
1.2 REFERENCES
[R1] Project LinkSCEEM– RI-222904– Annex I – Description of Work [R2] LinkSCEEM WP2 D3: ―Assessment report‖ [R3] The EUMEDCONNECT project www.eumedconnect.net [R4] CYTA, www.cytaglobal.com [R5] Pan Arab Network Study [R6] www.telegeography.com
1.3 DOCUMENT AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
In case of omissions or mistakes the Project Manager of LinkSCEEM in consultation with the appropriate Work Package managers may alter this document, in which case a new version
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 7
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
will be uploaded to the LinkSCEEM website and possibly also be submitted to the European Commission.
1.4 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CREF-CyI The Cyprus Research and Educational Foundation (Cyprus Institute) CaSToRC Computation-based Science and Technology Research Centre EC European Commission EU European Union GA General Assembly; The LinkSCEEM governing body GRNET Greek Research and Technology Network; The Greek NREN HPC High Performance Computing; Computing at a high performance level at any given time; Often synonymous with Supercomputing ICT Information and Communication Technologies IUCC Inter University Computation Center, Israel; Israel‘s NREN NREN National Research and Education Network WP Work Package SARA Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam HIAST Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology JUNet Jordanian Universities Network
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 8
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The overarching objective of LinkSCEEM is to ensure that in its planning and early development phases the Computation-based Science and Technology Research Centre (CaSToRC) of the Cyprus Institute (CyI) develops strong anchors in both the European ICT infrastructure and the Eastern Mediterranean scientific community, and thereby helps to build scientific and technological bridges between Europe and the Middle East, thus narrowing the digital gap between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western World. This has been achieved through the action of a consortium of European and US leaders in the fields of HPC and computational science, and of prominent Eastern Mediterranean research institutions, conducting studies, prospective work and outreach activities relevant to the future integration of CaSToRC in the EU HPC landscape, and to the achievement of its regional dimension. The need for improvement of the regional network connectivity is a central issue in ensuring transparent access to HPC resources and in allowing large datasets to be transferred to computing facilities where they can be analysed and processed. Thus, the execution of a feasibility study for the creation of a regional high-speed research network is deemed essential in the aim of interconnecting the Eastern Mediterranean countries with each other and with Cyprus. The following points are addressed in the present study: The exploration of several possible solutions for providing regional interconnection of the Middle East countries and their linking to Cyprus. The execution of a comparative analysis among the different solutions, addressing the major components of their feasibility, in particular in terms of technical, financial and political aspects. Coordination with the studies concerning the assessment of needs for computing resources, so as to maximise the impact of the network study, by bringing more emphasis on countries and areas where obvious major users can or do exist The investigation of potential funding sources for the regional network, in coordination with the local EUMEDCONNECT partners (mostly the NRENs in the region).
Generally, it appears that the practicality of upgrading the regional network connectivity of RENs is subject to financial and political concerns. On the other hand, it is obvious that there is a great deal of interest and need within the Eastern Mediterranean countries for computational and networking resources. Network connectivity of scientific communities has emerged as a serious concern and obstacle to regional development due to the high pricing and low level of supply competition.
The present study explores the ways that regional stakeholders can provide insight into the local context and on the political barriers that may be encountered. In addition it emphasizes
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 9
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
connectivity options which assume Cyprus to be a possible main termination point of the NREN traffic generated in Levant countries. This has been considered within the context of EUMEDCONNECT, whose objective is the interconnection of MENA countries with GEANT. Finally, several funding program frameworks have been examined (including FP7, the ENP and INTERREG) as well as the capabilities of leveraging the different instruments available. The European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) appears at present to be the most promising of these given the goals of the project.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 10
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
3 LINKSCEEM COMMUNITY NETWORKING NEEDS
The use of high performance computing (HPC) has become crucial in many fields of research, examples include the simulation of how galaxies collide and merge or how proteins fold, how molecules move through the wall of a cell or even how tornadoes and hurricanes form, as well as many other complex natural and engineered phenomena. The deployment of robust, high- performance computing resources is an objective of utmost importance for the Eastern Mediterranean region – in which such resources are currently scarce - so that research communities can benefit from the use of increased computing power and can be supported to develop new computing and software technologies. The LinkSCEEM project parallels the planned development of the Cyprus Institute/CaSToRC HPC infrastructure, in order to support its European integration and regional impact.
Taking into account the scientific communities‘ needs, as perceived notably through the project‘s Assessment of Needs Work Package (WP2), as well as the prospective requirements that could come up after the establishment of the networking infrastructure that is needed to complement these resources, several categories of scientific activities can be outlined, such as:
Developing and supporting powerful and reliable computing, data, and networking resources that enable researchers to solve demanding science and engineering problems. Development and exploration of innovative architectures and techniques that can accelerate scientific computing. Collaborative work among the research communities to fully exploit the extraordinary resources available on the Internet (computing systems as well as data sources, libraries, and tools) with cyber-environments. Developing software, techniques, and tools to improve national cyber-security and to help law enforcement better respond to cyber-attacks Providing insights into complex systems and sharing the thrill of scientific discovery with the broadest possible audience through artful visualizations of scientific phenomena. Preparing the next generation of scientists and engineers to effectively use computational tools and techniques.
The LinkSCEEM project aims to promote networking and integration efforts that will favour these activities, through the integration of CaSToRC with other European HPC resources, the build-up of its user community, the incubation of research and educational collaborations and through a comparative study of options for the upgrade of regional network connectivity, within the present Work Package. Network connectivity, although conceptually independent from other LinkSCEEM activities, is clearly a crucial enabling factor for their development and impact. The results of the assessment of needs WP [R2] demonstrate the existence of needs and demands in that respect within the regional scientific communities. In particular, the roundtable discussions held during various user meetings organised within the project show a consensus among potential CaSToRC users for the urgent need of such an upgrade. The project‘s networking process will contribute to making a coordinated scientific case to obtain it from the relevant decision
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 11
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
makers. The relation between the HPC community needs, as assessed within WP2, and the corresponding needs in terms of links‘ speeds needs to be carefully analysed. This can only be done realistically by comparison with the bandwidth usage patterns of similar communities, where the current bandwidth restrictions of the Eastern Mediterranean do not apply.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 12
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS
4.1 EXISTING SUBMARINE CABLES The main available submarine cable systems in the area of Cyprus and the neighbouring countries in the Eastern Mediterranean can be found in the following diagrams.
Ayia Napa
Pentaskinos
Figure 4.1 Cable systems in the Cyprus region
APHRODITE 2 CADMOS CIOS IC1 KINYRAS LEV SEA-ME-WE 2 SEA-ME-WE 3 TEFKROS UGARIT ALETAR BERYTAR EMOS-1
Figure 4.2 Cable systems in the Cyprus region
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 13
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.1.1 Cyprus-Syria UGARIT submarine cable system links directly Cyprus with Syria and has terminal stations in Pentaskinos (Cyprus) and in Tartous (Syria). UGARIT, put in operation in 1995, was an SDH STM-4 unrepeatered submarine cable system. It consists of two optical fiber pairs which were both being used in 1+1 configuration and running at 622 Mbps. The cable length is 251 km from Pentaskinos ODF to Tartus ODF. The system was upgraded in 2005 to the STM-64 2F MS-SPRing (MultiSection-Subnetwork Protection RING). The ring consists of three sites: Tartus (Syria) - Pentaskhinos (Cyprus) and Jdeidh (Lebanon). Figure 4.3 shows Tartus upgraded system which is part of the ring configuration that is depicted in figure 4.4.
Figure 4.3 Upgraded system in Tartus
Figure 4.4 Submarine ring (Cyprus, Syria, and Lebanon)
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 14
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.1.2 Cyprus-Lebanon CADMOS is an SDH STM-4 unrepeatered submarine cable system that ran at 622 Mbps, when it was put in operation in1995. It connects Cyprus (Pentaskinos) and Lebanon (Jdeideh and Ras Beirut). It uses armoured cables and it consists of two fiber pairs from Pentaskinos to branching unit, two fiber pairs from the branching unit up to Jdeideh and two fiber pairs from branching unit up to Ras Beirut. The system forms a protected ring (in 1+1 configuration) between these three terminals: Pentaskinos - Jdeideh - Ras Beirut. The cable lengths are: - 230 km unrepeatered from Jdeideh to Pentaskinos. - 234 km unrepeatered from Ras Beirut to Pentaskinos. - 52 km unrepeatered from Jdeideh to Ras Beirut. The system has been upgraded as a section of the STM-64 MS-SPRing (Tartus- Pentakhinos- Jdeideh). The following figures show the upgraded system: figure 4.5 for Jdeideh terminal, figure 4.6 for Ras Beirut terminal and Figure 4.7 for Pentaskinos terminal.
Figure 4.5 Jdeideh terminal
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 15
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Figure 4.6 Ras Beirut terminal
Figure 4.7 Pentaskinos terminal
4.1.3 Cyprus-Jordan The links between Cyprus and Jordan use other cable systems, and can be connected as follows: a. Through Israel using the CIOS (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2) or MN or MINERVA (LEV) cable systems (see below analysis) and then further with terrestrial extensions to Jordan.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 16
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
b. Through Syria using the UGARIT cable system and then further with terrestrial extensions to Jordan. c. Through Italy using the FLAG (FEA) cable system (see below analysis) and then with submarine extensions to Cyprus over SMW3, MN or MINERVA cable systems (see below analysis).
4.1.4 Cyprus-Israel CIOS submarine cable system links directly Cyprus with Israel with terminal stations in Ayia Napa (Cyprus) and Nahariya (Israel). The cable length is 250 km (repeaterless) and was launched in April 1994. The capacity of the system was initially 622 Mbps using SDH technology (protected 1+1). The capacity routed via CIOS is restored via LEV (Cyprus-Israel) using the TEFKROS and KINYRAS Cyprus segments. It is depicted in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. LEV submarine cable system links Cyprus with Israel with terminal stations in Yeroskipos (Cyprus) and Tel Aviv (Israel). The third landing point is Mazara del Vallo (Italy). The cable length is 2600 km (18 repeaters) and was launched in 1999. The system has two fiber pairs and its currently actual lit capacity reaches 30Gbps. The cable is potentially upgradeable to 160 Gbps. Capacity on Lev is marketed by MN, which also operates the MedNautilus Submarine System.
Figure 4.8 LEV system Source: Telegeography
Capacity on LEV was allocated to establish half of the MINERVA submarine system, the other half implemented over MN cable.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 17
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.1.5 Cyprus-Palestine The links between Cyprus and the Palestinian Territories use other cable systems, and can be connected mainly through Israel using the CIOS or LEV cable systems and then further with terrestrial extensions to the Palestinian Territories. Alternatively, Palestine can reach Cyprus through Jordan and its connectivity capabilities to Cyprus either over FLAG (FEA, see below analysis) or through Syria, in case of political problems.
4.1.6 4.1.6 Cyprus-Egypt SEA-ME-WE2 and SEA-ME-WE3 submarine cable system link Cyprus with EGYPT with terminal stations in Yeroskipos (Cyprus) and Alexandria (Egypt). The Yeroskipos tail is connected to the main SEA-ME-WE3 cable system which has a huge length of ~ 39.000 km linking Europe, Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, South East Asia, China and Australia. The capacity of the old system (Sea-Me-We2) is 565Mbps and uses PDH technology (with repeaters), while the lit capacity of SEA-ME-WE3 varies from 40 Gbps up to 200 Gbps depending on the segment of the cable. SEA-ME-WE3 was put in operation in 1999 and its construction cost was around USD 1,2B.
Figure 4.9 SEA-ME-WE3 system Source: Telegeography
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 18
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.1.7 Cyprus-Europe Cyprus is directly connected with multiple cable systems to European countries: a. To Greece and Italy via SEA-ME-WE3 cable system with stations at Chania-Crete (Greece), Mazara del Vallo (Sicily-Italy) and Yeroskipos (Cyprus). A restoration path of this link exists via the Aphrodite-2 cable system connecting again Yeroskipos with Chania. b. To Greece via the Aphrodite-2 cable system.
Marmaris ADRIA- Athens Pentaskhinos Palermo Lechaina 1 Yeroskipos Chania Mazzara APHRODITE 2
SEA ME WE 3
Alexandria
Figure 4.10 SEA-ME-WE3 (partially) and APHRODITE-2 cable systems
APHRODITE 2 cable was launched in 1994 connecting Cyprus (Yeroskipos) and Greece (Chania). The cable length is 868km. Cable‘s technology is PDH repeatered offering a total capacity at the order of 2X565Mbps.
c. To Greece and Italy via the Mednautilus cable system. The MedNautilus Submarine System (MedNautilus) entered service in November 2001, when the first phase of construction linking Catania, Chania, and Haifa was completed. In 2002, connections to Tel Aviv and Athens were added to the system. The link to Istanbul was completed in July 2004.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 19
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Figure 4.11 MedNautilus cable system
d. The Med Nautilus Submarine network system comprises links to Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Israel as well as the Pan European and Atlantic wavelengths which link the major cities of Western Europe to North America. The landing point in Cyprus is Pentaskinos. The system comprises 6 fiber pairs and 92 repeaters, based on the very latest DWDM technology. A corresponding network map is shown in Figure 4.11. MN cable length reaches 7.000km. The actual system capacity is currently reaching 200Gbps while it could be potentially upgraded to 3.840Gbps. Landing points include Catania/Italy, Tel Aviv/Israel, Haifa/Israel, Istanbul/Turkey, Chania/Greece, Athens/Greece, and Pentasckinos/Cyprus. It connects to Italy via the Minerva cable system with stations at Catania and Mazara (Sicily-Italy) and Yeroskipos and Pentaskinos (Cyprus). The Minerva uses a dedicated express fiber pair along the ring with 10 Gbps DWDM wavelengths and connects Cyprus and Italy on a dedicated direct link bypassing Turkey, Greece and Israel. During 2007, two 10 Gbps wavelengths were added to LEV between Cyprus and Italy to form half of the planned Minerva sub-system. From Sicily to Europe the Minerva is connected to the MedNautilus Pan European network. The MINERVA system is operated and managed by MN for the sole use of CYTA and its customers.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 20
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Figure 4.12 MINERVA system
4.1.8 Cyprus-Turkey Cyprus is connected to Turkey via the SEA-ME-WE3 cable system with stations at Marmaris (Turkey) and Yeroskipos (Cyprus), as well as with the MedNautilus cable with stations at Yeroskipos and Istanbul (Turkey) as shown above.
4.1.9 Syria-Lebanon (BERYTAR) BERYTAR submarine cable system links directly Syria with Lebanon with terminal stations in Tartous (Syria) and Trablous, Beirut and Saida (Lebanon). The cable length is 134 km (repeaterless) and was launched in April 1997. It uses armoured cables and it consists of three fiber pairs. The capacity of the system was initially 622 Mbps using the SDH technology (protected 1+1) and it has been recently upgraded to 2,5Gbps using DWDM technology. BERYTAR is protected through CADMOS (Lebanon-Cyprus) and UGARIT (Syria-Cyprus), the three of them forming a network triangle
4.1.10 Syria-Egypt (ALETAR) ALETAR submarine cable system links directly Syria with Egypt with terminal stations in Tartous (Syria) and Alexandria (Egypt). It uses armouring cables and it consists of two fiber pairs with eight optical amplifiers. The length of the cable is 787 km.
4.1.11 FLAG (FEA) FLAG Europe-Asia submarine cable system has a length of around 28.000 km. It lands in 13 countries. The system‘s lit capacity is 85Gbps, but it is likely to have different capacities
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 21
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
within different segments. Landing points in the area of interest include Palermo (Italy), Alexandria (Egypt), Suez (Egypt), and Aqaba (Jordan).
Figure 4.13 FLAG (FEA) system Source: Telegeography
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 22
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.2 PLANNED SUBMARINE CABLES
4.2.1 HAWK FLAG NGN-Hawk – Reliance FLAG is planning a new Mediterranean cable. It is expected to land its proposed next-generation network (NGN) submarine cable ‖Hawk‖ at Cyprus-based PrimeTel's landing station (to be operational in Yeroskipos within 2010). This will be a segment of the cable nominally named System 3 and being expected to land, among others, Egypt, Cyprus, France, and Italy. According to recently update information HAWK will be operational by the end of June 2010. Although the cable has been laid some problems have been encountered regarding the landing station in Cyprus. There are some stand-by branching units for linking Greece and Italy but no information concerning business plans for connecting these two countries is available so far.
4.2.2 IMEWE I-ME-WE (India-Middle East-Western Europe) is a 13.000 km high speed optical submarine cable connecting Mumbai, India with France. The cable system shall provide data rates of up to 3.84 Terabits per second, and is expected to be operational in early 2010. The cable system shall also include a terrestrial link connecting the cities of Alexandria and Suez in Egypt. The cable system shall be funded by a consortium of 9 companies. I-ME-WE cable system shall comprise three optical fiber cable pairs and 2 trunk lines. Among others, it shall have landing stations at: Suez (Egypt), Alexandria (Egypt), Tripoli (Libya), Catania (Italy), Marseille (France).
Figure 4.14 IMEWE system Source: Telegeography
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 23
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.2.3 MENA Orascom‘s Middle East North Africa (MENA) Cable System will link Italy, Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Oman. The system will have a potential capacity of 5.76 Tbps via 3 fiber pairs. Orascom also operates the Med Cable Network, which connects France and Algeria. It will have cable landing points at Mazara and Sicily (Italy), Crete (Greece), Alexandria (Egypt), and then overland to Suez (Egypt). The RFS date of the cable is estimated in early 2010 and its construction cost is estimated at around USD 400M.
Figure 4.15 MENA system
4.2.4 Other Relevant Announcements In addition to the above mentioned planned submarine cables, there are some recent announcements as follows:
1. Syrian Telecommunication Establishment (STE) received a proposal from a Cyprus private company named PrimeTel to build a new submarine cable system between Tartus and Cyprus. This system will consist of 16384 STM-1 2F 128 wavelength fiber pair. If this proposal was adopted by STE and implemented, there would result in a good chance to have the price of circuits between Cyprus and Syria dropped down significantly. The proposal is currently being evaluated by STE, and no decision has yet been taken.
2. Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (CYTA) and Syrian Telecommunication Establishment (STE) announced on 17/7/2009 that they signed an agreement to build an alternative Cyprus-Syria high speed submarine cable under the provisional name "Alasiya". A feasibility study for the building of the new cable is to be completed within three months. The two Telco‘s also came to agreements on a strategy for providing capacity to Europe as well as a framework for international telephony termination rates between their two networks. In December 2008, CYTA and STE had agreed to initiate feasibility studies for establishing a second undersea fiber-optic link between their countries, alongside an agreement to increase
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 24
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
internet capacity by upgrading the existing UGARIT submarine cable link between Tartous in Syria and Pentaskhinos in Cyprus.
3. Another agreement of CYTA is with OGERO and relates to the upgrade of the CADMOS submarine cable system which runs between Cyprus and Lebanon. The parties also confirmed their willingness to proceed with the planning and construction of a new high-capacity submarine cable system between Cyprus and Lebanon. The new system will be in a position to replace the existing CADMOS, providing a high-quality alternative route.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 25
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.3 TRADITIONAL TERRESTRIAL INTERCONNECTIVITY Terrestrial fiber-optic cables could be used to interconnect the following countries: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. The existing fiber cables between these countries are as follows: STM-4 link between Damascus (Syria) and Beirut (Lebanon). The cable crosses the border from Jdeidet-Yabous (Syria) to Shtoura (Lebanon), with no protection configuration, and with a single border station. To date, no upgrade plans have been announced for this border crossing. STM-4 link between Damascus and Amman (Jordan). The cable crosses the border from Daraa (Syria) to Alramtha (Jordan), with no configuration for protection and with a single border station. Also for this connection, no upgrade plans have been announced. STM-16 link between Damascus and Turkey. The connection with Turkey forms an MS-SPRING with two border stations. The ring starts from Allepo (Syria) with two cables going to the border. The first cable crosses the border from BabAlhawa (Syria) to Alrihania (Turkey), and the second cable spans from Alsalameh (Syria) to Kelles (Turkey), where both cables join in Turkey. By the end of 2009, the ring will be upgraded to WDM.
Microwave radio links are also available for interconnecting the above countries as a means of terrestrial connectivity. According to current information available the existing links are: Between Syria and Turkey: The configuration supports 16 E1 at 2GHz operating frequency. Between Syria and Jordan: The configuration supports 16 E1 at 14 GHz operating frequency. Between Syria and Lebanon (not actually operational): The equipment was damaged during the Lebanon war and has not been repaired since. For all of the above microwave links, there are no plans for further upgrades or even repair of the damaged stations. Unfortunately, neither is there an estimate of service availability or performance available for them. Taking into account that these microwave links are not actually operational, can be suffering from propagation fading and the supported speeds are not high enough for the purposes of an HPC project such as LinkSCEEM, they can be neglected from further consideration.
In Jordan, Zain has the largest number of subscribers in mobile services. Zain also owns a large optical fiber network with cross-border connections. The figure below shows the fiber network of Zain.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 26
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Figure 4.16 Zain network
Zains‘ international network with respect to the region of reference can be summarized as follows:
. Zain has cross border fiber connections to o Palestine (two routes) using the fiber of NEPCO o Egypt via Flag o Syria (planned) . Zain is also planning: o to lay fiber optics cable in the big cities of Jordan o to lay fiber between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea (Dead to Red) Zain relies mostly on the network of Saudi Arabia as they are partners with Zain in Saudi Arabia.
VTEL Jordan is one of the new ISPs of Jordan. They started building their own fiber network and leasing fiber from other fiber providers. VTEL Jordan owns FALCON landing station in Aqaba which will be operational in Q1 2010. VTEL Jordan will connect with Syria and Saudi Arabia in Q2 2010.
Jordan Telecom has the largest fiber network covering all the cities of Jordan and has its own connections with all borders: Syria, Palestine (2 links), Saudi Arabia (2 links) and Iraq. In addition to this, it owns and manages the FLAG landing station in Aqaba.
The Ministry of ICT of Jordan is managing and implementing the National Broadband Network (NBN) of Jordan. The NBN should connect all schools, Universities, community colleges and the governmental departments and institutions. MoICT is implementing the network using the following: . Optical fiber leased from NEPCO . Lay its own fiber in all cities and villages In addition, MoICT is implementing a project laying pipes and optical fiber from Aqaba (south) to Amman and then from Amman to Irbid (north). Service providers can lease the pipes and/or optical fiber.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 27
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
In Lebanon any growth in the broadband sector has been stifled by limited bandwidth, with gateway facilities remaining a monopoly of incumbent telco Ogero which offers wholesale narrowband/broadband services to all ISPs.
With regards to actual fiber paths from Israel to Jordan, there exists a crossover at the Hussein Bridge located 57km from Amman, in the southern Jordan Valley. Bezeq and Jordan Telecom have an agreement for the interconnection at the bridge. Currently, there are only SDH circuits (STM-1 and STM-4) operating between the two countries but whenever a request for higher bandwidth is addressed, additional equipment would be installed. In addition, a new fiber path with alternative carriers via the abandoned King Abdullah Bridge is being executed.
In the Palestinian Authority, there are no clear border crossings. Paltel has taken over the infrastructure left behind by Bezeq so there is no problem with establishing data links to any Palestinian Authority city in the West Bank. This is not so for the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is currently in control and no relationships exist.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 28
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
4.4 ALTERNATIVE OPTICAL INFRASTRUCTURES
In the present section, an analysis of the fiber over alternative infrastructures is presented, as a means of supplying an alternative approach to the establishment of a new Research and Education Regional Network, as this can be seen as the main concept of LinkSCEEM Network Study. Most emphasis has been given to the possibility of using fibers laid along the HV (High Voltage) or MV (Medium Voltage) transmission network of Electric Power Utilities in these countries. However, there is also the theoretical possibility of using fibers laid along railways, pipelines or even highways, though this does not seem to be as likely at present.
One of the most promising options to interconnect the countries in the region is the use of the dark fibers available on the high voltage power grid that connect these countries. The idea behind this is that power companies normally install a ground wire containing optical fiber (OPGW) along their high voltage power line towers. OPGW is used on the one hand to ground the grid from electrical strikes and on the other to provide a low noise communications channel for the grid‘s monitoring and control needs. Power utilities typically need only a single fiber pair for the control and sometimes a second pair is used for their own communication purposes. So, as the OPGW usually contains between 6 and 48 fibers, the remaining unused fibers (so called dark – unlit - fibers), can be regarded as a possible means of high speed connectivity for other users such as the research and education networks.
However, there are some critical points to be considered in such a scenario. First, power companies (PPCs) are often publicly owned enterprises. Telecommunication Regulators should be careful about the possible market distortions that could arise when/if subsidized communications resources are made commercially available in an unplanned way. When a power/electrical utility wishes to market its ―dark fiber‖, it generally has to obtain the approval of the appropriate ministries and to proceed under the conditions set by the telecommunications regulators and the Act in force. An exception can occur in case of governmental ―self-supply‖ networks that are not available to the public for commercial use. Such networks are widely recognized in telecommunications legislation and generally are only minimally regulated. Public universities and research institutes can represent a prime candidate for such network connectivity given that Research and Education networks reflect infrastructures of high national importance.
Second, if dark fiber is granted by the power utility to another user organization, the maintenance and the management of the telecommunication infrastructure built upon these fibers is normally the responsibility of the user organization, which may not be able to support operation and maintenance facilities. Subcontracting this task to a private company may incur an additional cost element.
Moreover, there might be other technical issues that require further consideration such as : are there enough huts, what is the span design, what is the fiber type and the mean time to repair, does PPC intend to enter the telecom market in a 2 year time frame?
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 29
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Concerning LinkSCEEM, the high voltage power grids cover the region and carry OPGW fibers that pass through the major Syrian cities (including Tartus where is landing station of above mentioned submarine cables) and cross the borders to reach the neighboring countries (Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey). HIAST‘s investigation showed that there are available unused fibers on the OPGW cables and so it is theoretically possible to implement links between Damascus and the other key cities including Tartus (Syria), Beirut (Lebanon), Irbid and Amman (Jordan).
Findings of the Pan Arab Network study in 2005 elaborated on the possibility of deploying a network based on dark fibers along the HV power lines. These are shown below, updated to some extent with current information.
4.4.1 Jordan In principle, it seems technically possible to build a Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) network connecting the JUNet central node at the University of Jordan to its counterpart Egyptian University Network (EUN) node at the University of Cairo. Transmission capacity can be 10Gbps at the minimum. Optical amplification will be required about every 100km. This can be installed in the existing network huts used by the power company network. Electrical regeneration will be required about every 600km. The network in Jordan can extend from Aqaba in the south to the Syrian border in the north with a node at the University of Jordan in Amman. This node would provide a gateway to the national R&E network, JUNet, which links Jordan‘s 8 public universities at 1Gbps primarily on a fiber pair from NEPCO (National Electric Power Company).
NEPCO fiber would be required from Ma‘an to Aqaba and from Irbid to the border with Syria, where JUNet and LinkSCEEM would share a common fiber pair; JUNet would be moved to a wavelength within the LinkSCEEM network transport infrastructure. This would not affect JUNet‘s ability to upgrade to 10 Gbps in the future and additional wavelengths could be allocated to provide even more growth capacity. Should common fibers be used, a careful transition plan will be required to minimize disruption to JUNet operations as the LinkSCEEM is installed. In the below figures an image of the power grid in Jordan is illustrated.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 30
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Fig. 4.17 On the left the NEPCO grid is depicted. On the right the fiber over the grid is depicted
National Electricity Company (NEPCO) owns the power distribution network of Jordan and a fiber network over this distribution network. Their fiber network covers most of the cities of Jordan and is also connected to Egypt, Syria and Palestine. NEPCO offers fiber leasing on its network, it currently provides fiber services to the Government of Jordan, Jordanian Universities Network and recently to a new ISP DAMAMAX.
4.4.2 Egypt Egyptian power appears to have 3 pairs of fiber installed on the transmission line from Towiba to Cairo. Two of these are being used by the power company and one pair can be available for the LinkSCEEM network. The power company has significant spare fiber capacity within all major urban centres, including Cairo, and from this perspective the local loop does not seem to be a major problem. DWDM transmission technology can be adopted. Connecting at the University of Cairo will bridge the LinkSCEEM network to the EUN Network providing access to more than 200 institutions in Egypt.
4.4.3 Syria Syria‘s high voltage lines between Damascus and Jordan to the south and Turkey to the north already carry optical fiber and there was sufficient surplus to allocate in support of LinkSCEEM initiative, if so requested by the Ministry of Higher Education and agreed by other parties. With the pending completion of a high voltage line to the environs of Beirut, fiber optic access could also be made available to interconnect Syrian and Lebanese universities (further clarification is needed to know if it is still pending). In terms of interconnecting the PEEGT‘s (Public Establishment for Electricity Generation and Transmission) fiber optic network with the SHERN this seems not to be a very significant problem as the distance between the PEEGT and SHERN hubs is only a few hundred meters. While there was no discussion of requirements for the need for additional repeaters and huts, these may not be required in Syria because the distance between Damascus and Irbid, Jordan is less than 130km.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 31
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
HIAST's team met with the Minister of Communications and Technology and with the Minister of Electricity to discuss. The conclusion was that the unused fibers should first be granted to the STE (Syrian Telecommunication Establishment, the incumbent in Syria) which can build a telecom infrastructure on these fibers and then provide SHERN with the needed circuits (not the fiber itself) at a nominal cost. This solution can also address the second issue, that is, STE will be responsible for the maintenance and the management of the telecommunications infrastructure. The main risk is that no time plan is clearly defined to implement this solution and to extend the STE telecommunications infrastructure to the power company dark fibers. This may also raise the question of how to regulate this solution with the neighboring countries and it is not known for the moment if even such regulation is feasible. In the below figure an image of the power grid in Syria is illustrated
Figure 4.17: Syrian power grid
4.4.4 Lebanon The power grid optical fiber reaches from the border with Syria only to the Kasra station in Zahle, approximately 50 kms east of Beirut. However, the extension of the 220 KV line, which will carry fiber, from Zahle to meet the Tripoli to Tyre high-voltage power line was scheduled to be completed during 2006 (further clarification required to know if it has been implemented). This can bring the power grid fiber within a relatively short distance from a suitable hub in Beirut.
4.4.5 The Palestinian Authority From a technical perspective, it does not seem possible to connect a hub in the Palestinian Authority directly to the potential LinkSCEEM network through an interconnection to Jordan, Egypt or Lebanon. A prevailing agreement with Israel precludes trans-border transactions without prior approval and such a request by the PA may not be politically practical. In any case, as electrical integration with the neighbouring Arab states does not yet exist (to our
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 32
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
knowledge at time of writing) establishing a direct and dedicated fiber connection for LinkSCEEM may not be practical and does not seem to be affordable.
4.4.6 General remarks The old Pan-Arab Network (PAN) initiative whose main vision was the deployment of a Research and Education dark fiber Network over the power lines and across North Africa and Levant countries is no more under consideration by the Arab League. On the other hand, the Ministry of ICT of Jordan recently undertook an initiative and submitted a proposal to the Arab Telecommunication and Information Council of Ministers to establish the Arab Regional Network. This had two steps: 1. to start implementing (as quickly as possible) the network using the available fiber between the Arab Countries and then 2. To work on building the regional permanent high speed fiber network. This proposal was discussed and welcomed by the Arab Policy committee. If this initiative is finally awarded there will be a good opportunity to deploy a regional research network based on this infrastructure, which is commercially oriented but could serve NREN needs too.
4.5 GLORIAD
The ―GLORIAD‖ advanced science internet network was launched in January 2004 by the U.S., China and Russia, and expanded its reach in 2005 – to Korea, Canada and the Netherlands – and in 2006 to the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The network promotes new opportunities for collaboration and cooperation among scientists, educators and students.
GLORIAD is constructed from a fiber-optic ring of light encircling the northern hemisphere —connecting universities and national laboratories with individual network circuits providing up to 10 Gbps. The network topology expanded in 2006 to provide several ring redundancies; it now represents a true ―ring of rings‖ around the earth – providing richer bandwidth and redundant network paths for improved reliability.
Scientists and engineers cooperatively use this infrastructure to collaborate and conduct research in ways unimagined only a few years ago. The bandwidth is sufficient to transmit entire libraries of information in seconds – or to permit thousands of simultaneous video- conferences for distance learning or shared seminars – or to enable the sharing of expensive scientific instrumentation. But the real value of GLORIAD is in how it enables literally millions of scientists, educators, policy makers, artists, students to better work together and share resources, data and experiences.
Eight years ago, the seeds of GLORIAD were planted when the U.S. NSF and Russian Ministry of Science agreed to jointly fund the first advanced network linking each country‘s scientists, educators and students. Its organizers and sponsors expanded it in January 2004
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 33
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
when they launched the U.S.-China-Russia ―Little GLORIAD‖ network, completing a literal ring of light around the earth. The network was further expanded in August, 2005 – with a new trans-Pacific segment connecting the US, Korea and China at 10 Gbps (60 times the original capacity). In September 2006, the U.S.-China portion of GLORIAD was upgraded by a factor of 16 – from 155 Mbps to 2.5 Gbps and the US-Russia upgrade to 10 Gbps is being completed during early 2007. GLORIAD‘s partners in the Netherlands contributed more than 20 Gbps of capacity connecting the U.S. and Europe. As of 2007, additional capacity across Northern Europe and connecting with Russia has been provided by NORDUnet.
The GLORIAD program (based in the U.S. at the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory) began in January 2005 a new five-year program funded with a $4.2 million grant from the NSF – as part of an international package of funding with its partners – linking the three founding national partners with partners in Korea, Canada, Netherlands and the Nordic countries – world leaders in advancing network and cyber infrastructure deployment.
Created to foster increased S&E cooperation, it today enables sharing of the most advanced science and research in the world – in high energy and fusion energy physics, in joint development of new energy sources, studying global climate change, mapping the universe, developing globally linked telescopes, better monitoring earth‘s unpredictable seismic activity, creating improved environmental models and monitoring, enabling active cooperation in nuclear materials protection, enabling shared medical knowledge and work – and hundreds if not thousands of others.
The effectiveness of GLORIAD is evident from the dramatically increasing level of utilization of the network and an ever-increasing number of users (scientists, educators, students) in the partnering countries. It was featured in the Super Computing (SC) 2006 conference where GLORIAD partners helped establish new bandwidth records for data transfer. But its importance is more evidenced in the over 4,000 partnerships GLORIAD serves every second of every day.
The National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Taj network has expanded to the Global Ring Network for Advanced Application Development (GLORIAD), wrapping another ring of light around the northern hemisphere for science and education as can be shown in the figure below. Taj now connects India, Singapore, Vietnam and Egypt to the GLORIAD global infrastructure and dramatically improves existing U.S. network links with China and the Nordic region.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 34
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
GLORIAD, being a network which in principle is not and could not be technically related to the networks presented in the above scenarios, may be a sort of peer entity that could facilitate their virtual expansion to other HPC resources and boost collaboration with other countries. Theoretically, network externalities are one of the most important factors for the deployment of networks, the fact remains that as the networks are used the demand increases, which in turn feeds further demand in a continuous cycle. These positive network externalities are strongly related with the number of the users and the interconnected networks. Hence, the option of interconnecting (Eastern) Mediterranean RENs and GLORIAD should be carefully considered since it can provide access to much more eager users and available resources. Egypt being the common point of the two networks can prove to be of strategic importance. Provided that Egypt can preserve two connections (GLORIAD and Mediterranean REN) at adequate bandwidth, it could offer an excellent option for the regional REN being interconnected to GLORIAD through its land. There can be several scenarios of interconnection between the two networks. What the best is depends on both technical and political issues.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 35
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
5 REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY COSTS
5.1 BANDWIDTH PROCUREMENT SCHEMES AND COMPETITION OVERVIEW
5.1.1 Bandwidth Procurement One of the first steps of deploying a new network, particularly when it serves R&E needs, is to decide on basic policies regarding the network procurement methodology. This is a different, though related, issue to dimensioning the network in terms of link speeds. It is associated with the commercial terms with which the networking resources will be brought into operation, given the fact that the basic funding mechanism is clarified to some extent.
Because funding is usually framed within a specific time interval, network procurement follows in most cases the approach of fixed-term contracts. This means that the network provider contracts the links with its customer for a specific period and the monthly link charges remain constant for the contract period. However, there might be options for charges changes during the contract period, agreed from the beginning, but this can be outcome of negotiations. The longer the contract term, the less the monthly charges, since it shows commitment to the provider (and safeguards its revenue stream). Normally, before the contract expires, the two parties come to a negotiation in respect to its extension. Contract cancellation before expiration may incur significant penalties.
The above mentioned approach is practically reflecting what is called annual (or multi-annual) lease and reflects an OPEX cost for the customer. Alternatively there can be procurement schemes based on the IRU (Indefeasible Right of Use) approach. These kinds of contracts last much longer. They can be practically aligned with the aging of the infrastructure and they are handled as CAPEX spend from an accounting standpoint, meaning that they are provided through a once-off payment and are subject to annual Operation and Maintenance fees (O&M fees). Typical contract durations can be 10y to 15y.
In the present Section some initial pricing figures are presented for both procurement options (lease and IRU) and indicative rates per km for building submarine networks are provided.
5.1.2 Competition Overview Obviously there is a lack of strong competition in the Eastern Mediterranean basin regarding bandwidth procurement. This is due to a variety of reasons, though the situation seems likely to change in the near future but at a relatively slow pace.
First of all, the submarine cable infrastructures have been supplied for years by consortium cables. In this model of ownership each member of the consortium contributes towards the upfront capital cost of building the cable and commits to paying for its operational and maintenance costs over its lifespan. Consortium members pay (or commit to pay) for the
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 36
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
entire cable system and its maintenance at the start of the project. This influences how they formulate their business plans and calculate their returns. They determine the configuration of the cable, agree on the funding rules that will cover capital and maintenance costs, and also agree on how capacity of the cable will be allocated. Members of a closed consortium also determine the price at which capacity on the system will be sold or leased to entities that are non-members. However, because the cable has already (in principle) been fully paid for, revenues from additional sales to non-members is of relative low incentive to the consortium, especially when there is potential conflict with a desire to protect their business plans and returns. When services are provided then their pricing is typically based on two half-circuits approach, that is two contracts are signed and two ends are paid (origination and destination) after the order is matched by both ends.
This inefficiency was addressed by private cables, e.g. Med Nautilus, that identified the increasingly high demand and the administrative disadvantages and proceeded to submarine cable investments, successfully as it has proved, advertising their capabilities to supply end- to-end links. There are not, however, many private undersea cables in the region. Therefore, there is capacity stock but not strong competition yet. New cables have been announced (see Section 4) and it is expected that, upon their entrance into operation, pricing will decrease.
5.2 BANDWIDTH PRICING – THE EUMEDCONNECT EXPERIENCE In the beginning of 2008, the EUMEDCONNECT2 project issued an international tender for connectivity of all Mediterranean countries. The tender has been run by DANTE, the organization mainly responsible for the GEANT pan-European research network, but also running other regional networks such as EUMEDCONNECT2 and the Trans European-Asian network (TEIN-2/TEIN-3). In summary regional connectivity offers around Cyprus were at the order of 34-155Mbps and not very cost-effective. Prices for 34 Mbps were of the order of few hundred thousand Euros, while 155 Mbps were much higher.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 37
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Figure 5-1- The EUMEDCONNECT2 network
There is no available information so far regarding the pricing of dark fiber over power lines. This item is still under investigation. Nevertheless, it is not strongly expected that concrete information will be available in the short term since political leverage is required first, so that the decision for use those fibers can be made. Pricing details follow this and for this reason confidence that such information can be disclosed by the involved administration from the beginning is low.
However, there are available indicative rates regarding the deployment of a submarine cable in order for the reader to have a first impression of the magnitude of such investments. For budgetary purposes a rate of 30KUSD per km can be considered as a cost for laying a new undersea cable, but this figure is subject to the number of fiber pairs included in the cable bind and to the active equipment that has not been taken into account.
IRU contracts (15Y) could be roughly estimated as 4 times higher in price than the correspondent annual lease contracts for the same service, but it is required to clarify what happens with the local loops.
Alternatively, to procure dark fiber pair over terrestrial networks the rate per meter ranges from less than one Euro to even 10 Euros, dependent upon the supplying capabilities of the region in reference.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 38
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
5.2.1 Pricing Facts and Assumptions
The main objective of the present analysis is the assessment of the cost for linking Cyprus to other countries of the Eastern Mediterranean at upgraded bandwidth, and how this process could benefit from better terms and conditions in bandwidth procurement (taking into account current pricing figures and their reasonable projections for the short-to-medium term). The assessment requires a price list, part of which was provided through the assistance of JUNet and HIAST, whilst direct contacts of the study team occurred as well for the insertion missing parts of the required information. There can be different scenarios, and notably different topologies, for network deployment; in the first scenario described below, the cost dimension is affected by the fact that in principle all countries have to be directly connected to Cyprus and some kind of resiliency is required that could be satisfied through intra- connections in the region. It is important to say that the high cost of submarine links is inevitable given that the termination point is Cyprus. On the other hand, pricing for terrestrial, back-up links, that could result in a sort of a protected ring topology, proved to be quite expensive. This can be explained by the fact that little competition exists in the regional submarine connectivity market and this becomes even less so concerning the terrestrial connectivity market, given that private investors are attracted by the provision of international services from the Middle East to Europe and not necessarily within the Middle East. Therefore, the terrestrial solutions are still subject to the drawbacks accompanying the half- circuit model which is adopted by the local incumbents.
Basic points to be mentioned regarding the cost analysis are as follows:
1. Update price figures were not available for all the countries and for all the speeds 2. No price figure was available for dark fiber products 3. All prices mentioned here below are strongly budgetary and not firm. 4. Pricing is not ―linearly‖ related with the distance, that is, pricing reflects the market conditions of supply and demand in the country of reference, the existing and forthcoming competition and regulatory level as well as the commercial strategy of the providers there. 5. Regression models were adopted for countries that update pricing was not available for certain speeds and/or destinations.
Alternative infrastructures are commented on in as much detail as possible within the present study. In theory, they could effectively support the idea of establishing a terrestrial-regional infrastructure. However, to establish a regional network the cross-border station issue, e.g. as to the fiber over power lines, has to be resolved in a simple and effective manner and is related with management, maintenance and operational aspects. Nevertheless, this cannot resolve the fundamental question of cheap and bulk connectivity to Cyprus. In the Levant, however, a regional backbone network plan has been under discussion for around two years with encouraging indications, but no final and binding decision has been made so far. This plan concerns general commercial activities and is not limited to the NREN demand.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 39
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
5.2.2 Topologies
As to the network topologies two draft scenarios are presented.
1. First a network design based on the assumption that all countries would be directly connected to Cyprus is evaluated, taking into account the need to minimize the cost. In this case the basic criterion for each country is what the minimum link cost to Cyprus is and at what speed. This scenario reflects a pure star topology with no intra- connections amongst Middle East countries.
2. In the second design the network is considered under the view of having a sort of a ring protection, without being necessary for all the countries to be included in the ring with double links or without preventing a country to be directly connected to Cyprus.
5.2.2.1 Design 1 The first design of the network includes p2p links between the country of reference and Cyprus. To ensure the solution is resilient protected links are assumed (and requested, when needed). In the table below prices are provided for all the links possible. All prices are for one year term and expressed in thousands Euro. Country Destination 34Mbps 155Mbps 622Mbps Egypt Cypus 250 500 1.350 Palestine Cyprus 380 578 957 Jordan Cyprus 250 500 1033 Lebanon Cyprus 750 - - Syria Cyprus 340 680 -
In the following figure a geographical representation of the Design 1 is illustrated.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 40
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Design 1
CY
Figure 5.2: Network design 1 A small change of the above design could adopt Israel as an intermediate point, where a multiplex/hub facility could be located for the links originating in Palestine and Jordan (622Mbps either). Therefore, the aggregate traffic (1 Gbps) could be terminated to Cyprus. A price improvement, not extremely good though, is reflected on the following table, all other links being same. A similar idea could be followed as to Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon could be connected to Syria over their cross-border links and the aggregate connection could be forwarded from Syria to Cyprus (cascade topology). Nevertheless, a significant disadvantage of the solution with passing through Israel is that it is likely other Arab countries, i.e. Syria, may deny their traffic to flow over Israeli network (ground) for political reasons.
Country Destination 34Mbps 155Mbps 622Mbps Egypt Cyprus 250 500 1.350 Palestine Cyprus 1.623 (1 GigE) Jordan Lebanon Cyprus 750 - - Syria Cyprus 340 680 -
5.2.2.2 Design 2 An alternative approach to what presented in the previous section could be to deploy a regional network with hub in Cyprus, but intra-connecting all the other countries in a manner that could provide higher resiliency, by off-loading part of the intra-traffic from Cyprus, and support stronger interaction among the Arab world. Ring‘s connectivity to Cyprus could be achieved via 2 separate high capacity links that could aggregate the whole traffic in two parts and terminate them in Cyprus. These two links are carrying the traffic of different countries
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 41
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
unless there is another scheme of protection. Here below the table including pricing date follows.
Country Destination 34Mbps 155Mbps 622Mbps Egypt Cypus 250 500 1.350 Palestine Cyprus 380 578 957 Palestine Egypt 240 385 - Palestine Jordan 460 600 Jordan Cyprus 250 500 1033 Jordan Egypt 288 500 - Jordan Syria 500 1.000 - Lebanon Cyprus 750 - - Lebanon Syria 750 -- - Syria Cyprus 340 680 -
In the following figure a geographical representation of the Design 2 is illustrated. Design 2
CY
Figure 5.3: Network design 2
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 42
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
5.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
As has been discussed, having Cyprus as a regional hub results in requiring some (if not all) connections to be submarine for the beneficiaries. The competition in the terrestrial networking marketplace is far behind the competition in the international subsea cables, which by the way is also not as strong as required. The fundamental and primary reason is that there are no landline operators other than the incumbents and their current business pricing model is (and probably will be for the short/medium-term at least) tied with the traditional half-circuit approach that keeps the pricing extremely high. Hence, there is in principle an obvious cost advantage of the scenario 1 with respect to scenario 2. Expecting that the new regional submarine cables that are to be brought into operation within the next 2 years will further intensify the currently loose competition, scenario 1 sounds much better. In addition, awarding terrestrial connections, particularly via Israel where the networking infrastructure is quite mature and can provide lots of capabilities, could result in political problems due to the strained relationships with the Arab countries in the Levant region. Such problems may create hurdles and put at risk any chances of obtaining an upgrade of regional connectivity. Taking all the above into account it is reasonable to rate scenario 1 higher than scenario 2 and prioritize them the way they are presented in the study.
In any case, however, Cyprus needs to upgrade its current international link to the rest of the EU (via Greece and Italy) in order to address the increased demand that will be generated by its own needs and as a result of it becoming a regional node for research & education related networks. A process for upgrading the connectivity of Cyprus to GEANT to at least 1 Gb/s has been initiated by the Cypriot NREN CyNet, and is currently under way,
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 43
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
6 FUNDING AND POLITICAL ASPECTS
6.1 EC POLICY OVERVIEW
At the Community level, the Union possesses three key funding instruments to support research and innovation:
1. The Research Framework Programme FP7: 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration activities and the 7th Euratom Framework Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities (FP73). EC FP7 with a total budget of over € 50 billion for the period 2007-2013 is the EU instrument specifically targeted at supporting research and development. It provides funding to co-finance research, technological development and demonstration projects based on competitive calls and independent peer review of project proposals. Support is available for collaborative and individual research projects as well as for the development of research skills and capacity.
2. The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP): The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme aims to foster the competitiveness of European enterprises and has a total budget of over € 3.6 billion for the period 2007-2013. Specific CIP programmes promote innovation (including eco- innovation); foster business support services in the regions and better access to finance, with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as the main target; encourage a better take-up and use of information and communications technologies (ICT); help to develop the information society and promote the increased use of renewable energies and energy efficiency.
3. Cohesion policy which is funded through the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund: The purpose of the Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund – ERDF and European Social Fund - ESF) and the Cohesion Fund is to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion by reducing disparities in the level of development among regions and Member States. Each region or Member State has developed, in discussion with the Commission and in partnership with all relevant private and public stakeholders, operational programmes that cover the entire programming period 2007- 2013. Many thematic areas are supported by the Structural Funds, including research, innovation and enterprise for which EU funding in the period 2007-2013 will be above € 86 billion. The allocation of funds in a given Member State or region varies according to its level of development. However, most regions will have some funding available from the Structural Funds in support of Research, Technological Development and Innovation (RTDI). Unlike FP7 and CIP, the management of the Structural Funds is decentralised to regional or national bodies.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 44
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Obviously, the above instruments may cut across many domains of European Commission policy, such as economic affairs, employment policy, energy, transport, agriculture, environment and information society.
6.1.1 The EU funding schemes FP7 and CIP (except for the Community Financial Instruments for SMEs): The funding in the form of grants is normally allocated through the publication of "calls for proposals", meaning that project ideas have to be submitted by a certain deadline, comply with clearly defined themes and have the required partnership structure, usually trans-national. In other words, it is not possible simply to spontaneously apply to the Commission for assistance. After the deadline, all proposals under a call will be examined by a team of evaluators to check their eligibility and to assess their quality. Funding will be awarded only for the best project proposals within the limits of the total available budget. In addition, under FP7, a project proposal might have to be modified (e.g. regarding its budget structure, types of actions, composition of the consortium) in the course of negotiation of the grant agreement.
Structural Funds: As the management of the Structural Funds is decentralised, each region or Member State has developed, in discussion with the Commission and all relevant private and public stakeholders, one or more operational programmes. These are tailored to the socio- economic challenges in the Member State or region, but may not use all the possible funding themes and models provided under the SF Regulations. Although the Checklist can indicate that most types of applicant, research/innovation activity, etc. have a positive score, not every region can be covered by an operational programme that supports the particular research or innovation activity. It is required to check this with the Managing Authority in charge of the programme in question. Also, application procedures (e.g. ongoing applications and project selection, calls for proposals on specific topics or competitions with fixed deadlines, etc.) and types of funding (grant, service/supply contract, financial instrument) are decided by the Managing Authority for the operational programme in question, depending on what is most appropriate for the activities envisaged. Project selection criteria are agreed by each operational programme's Monitoring Committee and are published (e.g. on Managing Authority websites). Projects will be evaluated according to these criteria. Moreover, a research or innovation project submitted to a Structural Funds programme will be judged on its likely contribution to the economic development of the Member State or region as well as on its scientific or technological quality.
6.1.2 Mixing EU funding sources The three EU funding sources (FP7, CIP and SF), when operating individually, provide significant support for research, development and innovation. However, their value can be further enhanced by combining them. When considering how the funding sources can be
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 45
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
combined, a clear distinction must be made between, on the one hand, co-financing, and, on the other hand, complementary financing.
Co-financing Although the EU can in some circumstances provide 100% of the eligible costs of the financing for a programme or project, the general rule is that the beneficiary (whether a public authority, SME or research entity) also contributes to the cost. This is called co-financing. The Structural Funds, FP7 and CIP each have their specific rules on the required level of co- financing. The question arises whether an applicant, faced with the need to provide a contribution to a project under one of the three instruments, could use funds it has received from one of the other instruments to cover the cost. In the case of the applicant's contribution to a project financed with the SF, the answer is no. SF must be co-financed by national and regional public and private funds. This means that funds received from another Community programme, like FP7 or CIP, cannot be used to provide the required national contribution to a SF programme and such action would indeed be illegal. The same prohibition applies in the other direction to the use of SF to cover the applicant's contribution to a project funded by FP7 or the CIP. The provision of the SF Regulations for 2007-2013 that prohibits co- financing by another Community instrument is Article 54(5) of Council Regulation No. 1083/2006. Article 54(5) provides that "an expenditure co-financed by the Funds shall not receive assistance from another Community financial instrument". In the case of FP7 or CIP, using one of these funds to cover the cost of the applicant's contribution to a project under the other fund is in practical terms impossible, given the system of calls for proposals with specific subjects, eligibility and selection criteria. However, funds from the European Investment Bank Group (EIB and EIF) can be used to finance the national or regional contribution to a project under FP7, CIP or the SF. Finally, in all cases, the maximum level of public support for a project is subject to respect of the state aid rules and the maximum contribution rate for each of the funds.
Complementary financing While co-financing the same project by different EU funds is either prohibited or not practically possible, it is possible to combine the resources of the SF, FP7 and CIP in a complementary way. This means using different funds for different actions (with separate cost statements/bills), which are carried out in a related or consecutive manner.
Scenarios for complementary financing Opportunities for complementary financing may arise in a number of different circumstances. • Separate but related activities or parts of a project can be funded at the same time by the SF, FP7 and CIP. • An activity could first be supported by FP7 or CIP, and its follow-up later by SF, or the other way round. Equally, the different funding sources may support different phases of the development of a technology over time, starting from basic research, to applied research, to demonstration or to pre-competitive market introduction.
Structural Funds first, followed by FP7 or CIP
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 46
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
It is often the case that funding is available to a research organisation or company under the SF in order to take the first tentative steps in research or in developing an innovative technology or product. The conditions for granting such funding are usually generous and flexible, especially in the least-developed regions. This allows the research organisation or company to grow to the point where it can enter the more competitive environment of FP7 for research activities and the development of technology or the CIP for broader innovative activities.
FP7 or CIP first, followed by Structural Funds It may be that, during the lifetime of an FP7 or CIP project, funding needs are identified in order to continue the activity. However, there is no guarantee that a further application for funding under FP7 or CIP would be possible, as there may be no relevant call open, or successful, given the very competitive nature of the process. However, if a SF Operational Programme in the region covers the research, technology or innovation in question, it may be able to provide the necessary funding to sustain the activity.
6.1.3 How to identify and seize an opportunity for complementary funding In case of intention to apply for funding under FP7 or CIP, to find out about opportunities for complementary funding in a region under the SF, consultation with the Operational Programmes for which the region is eligible is required. If these programmes support the same type of activity as the FP7 or CIP project in subject, it may be possible to seek complementary funding according to the programme rules. However, in case on intention to apply for funding under the SF and to find out about opportunities for complementary funding in the said region under the CIP or FP7, the situation is different. This is because there are no fixed FP7 or CIP allocations per region. The appropriate course of action then is to examine the current funding opportunities under these instruments and apply according to the rules for participation. It needs to be recognised, however, that, even if the CIP or FP7 can fund the same type of activity as the SF project, it will not always be the case that a complementary funding opportunity will exist through a call for proposals at a particular moment.
The implementation of the three funding instruments usually involves different administrative levels and authorities. The responsibility for the implementation of the SF often lies with regional authorities, while participation in the programming and monitoring for FP7 and the CIP lies with the national/central/federal authorities. In addition to this multi-level governance structure, the responsibilities are often spread over different departments: for the SF and the CIP it is often the economics/enterprise/industry administrations that are in charge, while for FP7 it is normally the research/science administrations.
National and regional policy makers and administrations have a central role in ensuring the effective exploitation of the potential for synergies between FP7, the CIP and the SF through the establishment of mechanisms for these authorities to act in a co-ordinated manner. The Commission therefore strongly encourages Member States to improve the arrangements for cross-departmental and vertically co-ordinated preparation and use of Community instruments to support research, innovation and cohesion at the national and regional levels. The
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 47
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
recommendations made in the Communication "Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation" are essential for the creation of the necessary synergies on the ground.
6.1.4 The checklist In order to determine which programme or funding source is the most relevant to support a networking project, 6 key questions have been identified that can direct to the relevant funding opportunities:
1. Is the project idea eligible for a given programme or funding source?
Regarding research organisations and universities such a project idea is eligible for all strands of FP7. As to CIP, research organisations and universities can participate in certain projects and networking activities, depending on the conditions described in the respective call for proposals. Opportunities exist in particular in the programmes addressing information technology, intelligent energy and environmental technologies. In the field of SF the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) can support a range of activities of public and private research organisations and universities. The ESF (European Social Fund) can support, among others, networking activities between higher education institutions, research and technological centres and enterprises. Conditions and topics depend on the relevant national/regional programme, so it is necessary to consult the operational programmes in each Member State or region for details.
2. Is the project type of research and innovation activity eligible?
Upgrading the capacity of research facilities is within the scope of ―Research Infrastructures‖ under FP7-Capacities, and in ―Research Potential‖, also under FP7-Capacities, but to a limited extent and only in the less-developed Convergence regions. As to the SF Research &Technology Development infrastructure (including physical plant, instrumentation and high-speed computer networks linking research centres) and centres of competence in a specific technology can be funded, particularly in Convergence regions, but the conditions and themes depend on the strategy and priorities of the programmes of the Member State or region.
3. What about the project timeframe?
In the FP7 context there are only certain time-frames for the submission of project proposals under each specific "calls for proposals". In many cases such calls are only published every one to two years and then not necessarily for all the possible themes. FP7 projects have to undergo an evaluation and approval process, followed by a period of contract negotiations. Therefore, from the date of submission of the proposal to the signature of the contract, frequently a 9 month time span or more must be foreseen and the first payments will only be
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 48
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
made thereafter. Typically, the length of medium to large scale projects will be in a range from 2 to 4 years, while smaller projects may last 1 year or occasionally even less.
4. What type of financial support can the project obtain?
In FP7 the main instrument of support is grants (non-repayable state aid and/or funding from the EC, normally complemented by co-funding from other sources). Loans available through the Risk Sharing Finance Facility are an exception. The Risk-sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) aims to enhance backing for private investors in research projects by improving access to loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for participants in large European research actions.
5. Who are the parties involved in the project?
Partners from non-EU Member States are allowed to participate in theme-oriented international cooperation actions under FP7-Cooperation, provided that there are also partners from at least 3 different EU / EEA Member States involved. Joint Undertakings may have specific rules on participation of entities from non-EU Members States. The ―INCO‖ activities under FP7-Capacities are specifically designed for international cooperation and the ―Research Infrastructures‖ actions are also open for international cooperation.
On the other hand, regarding SF and as far as programmes under the "Convergence" and "Regional competitiveness and employment" objectives are concerned participation is not allowed. Concerning programmes under the "European territorial cooperation" objective, up to the limit of 10% of the amount of the ERDF contribution to the programme concerned expenditure incurred in implementing projects on the territory of countries outside the European Community can be eligible, where the projects are for the benefit of the regions of the Community.
6. In what location can the project apply for funding?
Organisations and researchers from all EU regions can apply for FP7 funding. The only exception for FP7 is the FP7-Capacities ―Research Potential‖ action, which is only open to participants in the ―Convergence‖ regions and the Outermost Regions. Similarly, all EU regions are in principle eligible for some funding under the Structural Funds. The topics and co-funding amounts/percentages depend on the programme in the Member State or region. The co-funding rates can be higher and a wider scope of activities can be funded in less well- off regions, the so called ―Convergence‖ regions with a GDP per inhabitant of less than 75% of the Community average. All the other regions in the EU are the so-called ―Regional competitiveness and employment‖ regions. They have a GDP per inhabitant of at least 75% of the Community average. For them the co-funding rates might be lower and the range of eligible activities will be narrower than in Convergence regions (e.g. support for major research infrastructures may be normally limited to the ―Convergence" regions). The
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 49
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
eligibility for cross-border programmes under the ―European territorial cooperation‖ objective also depends on the location of the different partner regions, whereas the whole territory of the European Community is eligible under the interregional and cooperation networks and exchange of experience programmes.
Non-EU countries (EEA, associated and candidate countries, ACP, etc.) can apply for all FP7 calls, provided that there are also partners from at least 3 different EU / EEA Member States involved. Institutions from International Cooperation Partner Countries (including all Mediterranean Partner Countries) are automatically eligible for FP7 funding, while participants from other countries may need to be funded from other sources; Participation from non-EU countries is especially welcome in theme-oriented international cooperation actions under FP7-Cooperation; Joint Undertakings may have specific participation rules for entities from non-EU Members States. The ―INCO‖ activities under FP7-Capacities are specifically designed for international cooperation. Participation of partners from non-EU countries is also possible under ―Research for the benefit of SMEs‖ in FP7-Capacities. In addition, a number of non-EU countries are associated and thus fully participating in FP7 under the same conditions as EU countries.
6.2 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
6.2.1 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) Since 2007, EU pre-accession funding is channelled through a single, unified instrument designed to deliver focused support to both candidate and potential candidate countries. The legal basis for this assistance is Council Regulation 1085/2006, adopted on 17 July 2006. More detailed implementing rules are laid down in Commission Regulation 718/2007 of 12 June 2007. Funding: The total pre-accession funding for the current financial framework (2007-2013) is € 11.5 billion. The only candidate country in the Eastern Mediterranean is Turkey, which is not a first line priority in the present study, so that it is unlikely that this instrument would be relevant; it is only mentioned here for completeness.
6.2.2 Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7; 2007-2013), bundles many research-related EU initiatives together under a common roof playing a crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment; along with a new Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), Education and Training programmes, and Structural and Cohesion Funds for regional convergence and competitiveness. It is also a key pillar for the European Research Area (ERA). The broad objectives of FP7 have been grouped into four categories: Cooperation, Ideas, People and Capacities. For each type of objective, there is a specific programme corresponding to the main areas of EU research policy. All specific programmes work together to promote and encourage the creation of European poles of (scientific) excellence.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 50
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
6.2.3 The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) aims to encourage the competitiveness of European enterprises. With small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as its main target, the programme supports innovation activities (including eco-innovation), provides better access to finance and delivers business support services in the regions. It encourages a better take-up and use of information and communications technologies (ICT) and helps to develop the information society. It also promotes the increased use of renewable energies and energy efficiency. With a total budget of €3,621 bn, the programme runs from 2007 to 2013.
6.2.4 European Investment Bank The European Investment Bank was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1958 as the long-term lending bank of the European Union. The task of the Bank is to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the EU Member States. The EIB raises substantial volumes of funds on the capital markets which it lends on favourable terms to projects furthering EU policy objectives. The EIB continuously adapts its activity to developments in EU policies. The operational strategy of the Bank is: To finance viable capital projects which further EU objectives To borrow on the capital markets to finance these projects
6.2.5 World Bank The Development Grant Facility (DGF) was established in 1997 to integrate the overall strategy, allocations, and management of Bank grant-making activities funded from the Administrative Budget under a single umbrella mechanism.
6.2.6 International Development Association (IDA) The International Development Association (IDA) is the part of the World Bank that helps the world‘s poorest countries. Established in 1960, IDA aims to reduce poverty by providing interest-free credits and grants for programs that boost economic growth, reduce inequalities and improve people‘s living conditions
6.2.7 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries by promoting sustainable development through loans, guarantees, risk management products, and analytical and advisory services.
6.2.8 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 51
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
6.2.9 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument – known as the ENPI – is the main financial mechanism through which assistance is given to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Partner Countries, as well as Russia. It is the cooperation instrument, managed by the EC‘s DG for Cooperation (EuropeAid), through which decisions taken on a political level are turned into actions on the ground. EuropeAid does more than ‗deliver aid‘. As both an active and proactive player in the development field, it also tackles universal issues, promotes good governance, human and social development, security and migration, natural resources, and more. A whole set of activities are carried out under the EuropeAid umbrella. The aid office‘s core area of competence is aid delivery and it achieves this by using a set of financial instruments. EuropeAid ensures the quality of the aid it delivers as well as its effectiveness. The ENPI appears as one of the most relevant funding schemes for this study, and is described in more detail in the next section.
6.3 EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY
6.3.1 Overview
The Mediterranean region is of strategic importance to the EU, in both economic (trade, energy, migration) and political (security, stability) terms. The political situation in the region is characterised by persistent tensions due to the Middle East conflict, the war in Iraq and its spill-overs to other countries, sporadic upsurges of terrorist activity, and in some countries domestic political tensions, lack of political openness and increasing popularity of political Islam movements. In the economic domain, a combination of fast demographic and labour force expansion and slow economic growth is resulting in high unemployment and stagnating incomes. The economic situation is aggravated by three socio-political ―deficits‖, the freedom deficit, the women‘s empowerment deficit and the lack of access to knowledge and education. The prospects for long-term economic growth are further threatened by the non-sustainable management of the environment and natural resources
The EU policy response to this situation is guided by two coherent and complementary strategies: the Euro-Med Barcelona Declaration at regional level (1995) and its bilateral Association Agreements and, since 2003, the European Neighbourhood Policy and its bilateral Action Plans.
The main objective of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is the mutual interest of the EU and its neighbours in promoting reform, the rule of law, stable democracies and prosperity – prosperity, security and stability - throughout the neighbourhood of the enlarged European Union. The EU offers its neighbours an intensified political dialogue and deeper economic relationship, based on shared values and common interests in tackling common problems.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the so- called ―Barcelona Process‖) share the same basis i.e. bilateral Association Agreements with countries in the region. Both policies make use of the institutions established under those
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 52
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Agreements, allowing for a formal dialogue at various levels. With many goals in common, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership pursues a multilateral track whereas the ENP provides additional focus and impact through a bilateral approach of mutual commitments to implement reforms and modernisation conducive to closer economic integration and political cooperation.
The ENP is a differentiated policy, offering EU partner‘s bilateral incentives and opportunities, in addition to the multilateral nature of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership e.g. where that envisages trade integration focusing on tariff issues, the ENP goes beyond to offer economic integration, inclusion in networks etc. The ENP uses new tools and methods e.g. precise reform goals and steps, regulatory harmonisation, the extension of the twinning and TAIEX instruments etc. It is therefore a valuable complement to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership as it allows each country to develop closer links with the EU, based on its particular needs and capacities.
In the south, the ENP encourages countries to reap the full benefits of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership by promoting infrastructure networks and markets (especially energy) and to develop new forms of cooperation with their neighbours. The ENP builds on the achievements of the EuroMediterranean Partnership, particularly in the area of trade
The ENP Country Reports and Action Plans are developed by the European Commission, working in close cooperation with the EU‘s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy on matters related to political cooperation. Where there are EU Special Representatives , as in the Middle East, the Commission also works closely with them on the development, implementation and monitoring of the political aspects of the relevant ENP Action Plans.
The ENP offers serious incentives for reforms that will bring benefits in terms of economic and social development, even apart from the benefits of greater trade and other access to the EU. These incentives go further than anything offered to any other group of ‗third countries‘. As well as ‗traditional‘ trade preferences and financial assistance, ENP offers:
new forms of technical assistance based on proven methodology concrete benefits such as gradual participation in EU Agencies and programmes in fields such as education, training and youth, research, environment, culture, audio- visual policy etc. a new, specific and policy-driven financial instrument – the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument - with increased funding and more efficient and streamlined procedures to better support partner countries‘ reform priorities a new emphasis on improved cross-border cooperation along the EU‘s land and maritime borders. even a long-term goal of a Neighbourhood economic community for partners who are interested and carry out the necessary reforms, with EU help.
Strengthened relations with the EU will assist in implementing political, economic and social reform agendas, contributing to sustainable growth and development, anchoring
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 53
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
macroeconomic stability, reducing trade barriers, stimulating investment, creating growth and employment. These incentives can help to meet the challenges ahead. How far each country progresses in these areas will, as ever, depend on their capacity and will to implement the necessary agreed reforms. Some of EU partners are already treating the Action Plans as a motor for change. It is also a matter of partners‘ political will – countries will go as far and as fast as they wish
The EU has a network of bilateral agreements with the countries covered by the ENP – Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (with the neighbours to the East) and Association Agreements (with the neighbours to the South). The EU has ensured that these agreements are fully compatible with WTO rules. Since the Association Agreements provide trade preferences to EU partner countries, they have therefore been notified and examined, or are in the process of being examined, in the WTO‘s Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.
In the short to medium term, the full(er) implementation of these bilateral Partnership and Cooperation or Association Agreements is a priority under the ENP. The ENP Action Plans with each country highlight the need for progress with WTO accession (where countries are not yet members) and the importance of implementing WTO rules (for those that are already members). The World Bank has specifically recognized the added value of ENP by already aligning Country Strategies with the ENP Action Plans precisely because the countries have greater ownership of these reform priorities. The ENP is of course also coherent with and supportive of other EU policies such as the EuroMediterranean Partnership, the European Security Strategy and the EU‘s Development policy and also policies on migration and sub- Saharan Africa.
The European Neighbourhood Policy covers the EU‘s neighbours to the east and along the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territory and Syria are included in the partner list. For Syria, the Association Agreement would have to be ratified before an ENP Action Plan could be considered.
The Action Plans are one of the key instruments for the implementation of the ENP. They are country-specific, tailor-made political documents which jointly define an agenda of political and economic and sectoral reforms. They set out short and medium-term priorities. Since these are agreed with the partner countries, they also provide useful guidance for EU and other donors and actors seeking to support, financially or otherwise, the countries‘ reform agendas. Financial support for the European Neighbourhood Policy and ENP countries will be provided through a dedicated European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The ENPI will target sustainable development and approximation to EU policies and legislation, and bring a radical improvement in EU capacity to support cross-border cooperation along the EU‘s external borders – thus giving substance to EU aim of avoiding new dividing lines. The ENPI will replace MEDA and TACIS and other existing instruments.
The ENPI is a ―policy driven‖ instrument that will operate in the framework of the existing bilateral agreements between the Community and the neighbouring countries. It will focus in
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 54
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
particular on supporting the implementation of the ENP Action Plans. In that context it will go further than promoting sustainable development and fighting poverty to encompass for example considerable support for measures leading to progressive participation in the EU‘s internal market. Legislative approximation, regulatory convergence and institution building will be supported through mechanisms such as the exchange of experience, long term twinning arrangements with Member States or participation in Community programmes and agencies. A specific and innovative feature of the instrument is its cross border co-operation component. Under this component, the ENPI will finance ‖joint programmes‖ bringing together regions of Member States and partner countries sharing a common border. The instrument will bring a radical simplification in procedures and substantial gains in efficiency, since it has proved difficult to support cross-border cooperation along the EU‘s external borders due to the need to combine internal funding instruments (Regional/Structural Funds) with external funding instruments (e.g. TACIS, MEDA), operating with different rules and procedures. It will use a ―Structural Funds‖ approach, based on multi-annual programming, partnership and co-financing. The cross border co-operation component of the ENPI will be co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
In keeping with the fact that the European Neighbourhood Policy is the EU‘s external relations priority, the amount of EC funding for these countries for the budget cycle 2007- 2013 – nearly €12 billion - will be 32% greater, in real terms, than the amount available 2000- 2006. The priority is to make sure that this is used as effectively as possible, strengthening the links between co-operation and the policy agenda.
Following discussions with EU Member States and the European Parliament, the Commission has taken a decision on the breakdown of these funds, and adopted Strategy Papers and Indicative programmes covering country, regional and cross-border programmes, for the period 2007-2010. The main focus is on country programmes, supporting partners‘ implementation of their own political, governance, economic and social reform programmes. Of the €5.6 billion available for 2007-2010, 73% are geared to support partners‘ implementation of their European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). For this reason, countries which have concluded an Action Plan and made progress in its implementation will receive substantial funding.
The second main focus is regional co-operation activities, including support for the Euro- Mediterranean Partnership and a brand new ENP scholarship scheme. A total of €827 million is available for this which is approximately broken down as follows: Inter-Regional Programme €260.8M, Regional Programme – South €343.3M, Regional Programme – East €223.5M.
In addition, cross-border cooperation will be supported, involving cooperation between local and regional authorities on both sides of the EU‘s external border. €277 million (matched by an equivalent amount from the European Regional Development Fund) are available for this. Moreover, €400 million are to be used during the 2007-2010 period to support governance
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 55
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
and to promote investment, through two new facilities, Governance Facility and a Neighbourhood Investment Fund.
The Governance Facility will provide additional EC support, on top of the EC funding amounts already allocated for those countries. This support will acknowledge and support the work of those partners who have made most progress in implementing the agreed reform agenda set out in their Action Plan. The assessment included in the Annual ENP Country Progress Report will provide the basis for the annual allocation decisions. It will support key elements of the reform agenda, helping reformist governments to strengthen their domestic constituencies for reform. The Commission intends to devote an amount of €300 million over the period 2007-2013. As to the Neighbourhood Investment Facility the Commission intends to put €700 million over the period 2007-2013 into a fund which would be used to support lending in ENP partner countries. EU Member States would be invited to match this amount, so the fund could then leverage as much as four to five times this amount of grant funding, in concessional lending for investment products in ENP partner countries, in priority sectors as identified in their ENP Action Plans. The European Neighbourhood Policy attaches great importance to cross-border cooperation, in order not to create new dividing lines between the EU and its neighbours. It will improve support for cross-border cooperation in several ways. Not only by obtaining more funding for this priority policy area but also by a radical improvement in the funding and implementation mechanisms. Unfortunately, the current situation is that the differences between the rules applying to funding programmes inside and outside the EU makes it difficult to support cross-border cooperation along the EU‘s external border. This was one of the reasons behind the Commission‘s proposal to replace all existing funding instruments for these countries with a single instrument – the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) which, by using the same rules and procedures as the EU‘s Structural Funds, would make it easier to implement projects which straddle the EU‘s external borders (land or maritime).
In addition to ENPI grant funding, neighbouring countries are eligible, in the period 2007-13, for loan financing through the European Investment Bank up to a total of €12.4 Billion
Planned figures of the Country Programmes are as follows: Egypt €558M, Jordan €265M, Lebanon €187M, Palestinian Authority €632M and Syria €130M.
Bilateral activities are guided by Action Plans for each beneficiary country. The Action Plans have a common structure with a specific Section on R&D. The content of the Action Plans has been negotiated between the concerned country and the European Commission before its formal adoption by the Joint EU/Partner State Association Council. The duration of the Action Plans is 3 to 5 years depending on the country.
Country Strategy Papers (2007-2013) including National Indicative Programmes (NIPs) have to focus on the prioritization of the foreseen activities and their implementation. The national authorities and the Commission lead this process. Key instruments for the support of the
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 56
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
implementation of the Action Plans are technical assistance and other forms of intervention such as: - Twinning, i.e. medium to long term projects involving experts from EU Member States who work and deliver in the respective country. - TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Instrument of the Institution Building Unit of the Directorate-General Enlargement of the European Commission), i.e. single events (e.g. workshops) organized in the respective country.
The Monitoring Committee can be used as an umbrella for exchanging experiences and good practices related to ENPI even though the definition of the bilateral activities under ENPI remains a national responsibility. According to the information available at the time of writing multilateral activities are under consideration by the European Commission in consultation with the Euro-Med partners, the EC playing a key role in the process.
6.3.2 Structure and implementation
This section lists the various funding mechanisms of the ENPI (bilateral, regional, inter- regional and cross-border), and gives more detail on those that might be used to fund network connectivity in the Mediterranean region.
6.3.2.1 Bilateral Actions As mentioned above, a large fraction of the ENPI funding is directed to bilateral actions, based on Association Agreements and Action Plans that are developed jointly by the EU and the Country concerned. Since the network connectivity needs to be addressed on a regional scale, it does not seem that bilateral actions would be the optimal approach. From a broader point of view, it is however worth reviewing the science related activities that have developed in various countries that are relevant to this study. Most ENP partner countries were successful in increasing their participation in FP7 compared to the previous FP6 programme. Science and Technology cooperation was in general deepened with the ENP countries having an S&T Agreement with the EU (e.g. Egypt). Negotiations with Jordan for an S&T Cooperation Agreement were successfully completed in 2008; the signature is expected to take place in 2009. In parallel, FP7 - through the International Cooperation part of the Capacity Programme - offers a number of tools to support regional S&T dialogue.
6.3.2.2 Jordan progress (as of 2008) Regarding research and technology the negotiations between the EC and Jordan on science and technology development were successfully concluded the agreement initialled in January 2009. The agreement is expected to be formally adopted before the end of 2009. It will consolidate the dialogue between the EC and Jordan and will also aim at improving the participation of Jordanian researchers in the research framework programmes. The agreement will be operated through a Joint Committee which will be composed of Commission and
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 57
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Jordanian representatives. Although a scientific research fund established by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research became operational at the beginning of 2008, the fund has not financed any projects yet. A better coordination and cooperation between the various stakeholders involved in the running of the fund is being sought. The success rate of Jordanian researchers in the 7th research framework programmes remains comparatively high.
6.3.2.3 Egypt progress (as of 2008) In the area of research and innovation Egypt is successfully implementing its national reform strategy (2007-2012). The second meeting of the Higher Council for Science and Technology was held in July 2008. During this meeting a list of broad national priorities was adopted as the first phase of a priority-setting exercise. The new Fund for Science and Technological Development (STDF) completed its first round of proposals in autumn 2008. Eighty-six proposals were selected for funding, most of which were for basic and applied research. The first call for proposals under the EU-Egypt Innovation Fund was completed in October 2008. The results were beyond expectations, both in terms of the number and quality of proposals submitted. In preparation for the next round of EEIF calls within the EU Research and Development and Innovation (RDI) programme, key topics for research and innovation have been identified in collaboration with the research and industrial communities. Under FP7, Egyptian researchers were particularly successful in their participation in the Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES), which aims at strengthening research partnerships through staff exchanges and networking between European research organizations and organizations from third countries. The network of FP7 focal points contributed to making Egypt's participation the highest among Mediterranean partner countries. Health, environment, food, agriculture & biotechnologies as well as Information and Communication Technologies were identified as thematic areas of Egypt's main interest.
6.3.2.4 Lebanon progress (as of 2008) Research and innovation activities in Lebanon remained limited as regards their potential. The successful participation of Lebanon in the first two calls of FP7 was relatively low, and effective actions should be undertaken to improve the participation of Lebanese research institutions in the Research Framework Programme, possibly through more effective development of contact points. Through the improvement of its National Contact Point and an active participation in the FP7 Inconet MIRA project for example, Lebanon could increase its participation in FP7 in topics of regional interest. Five applicants out of 78 (2 of them in the ICT sector) have been main-listed. Two contracts have been signed so far. Innovation issues will need to receive adequate attention at government level in order for Lebanon to reach its full potential.
6.3.2.5 The occupied Palestinian Territory progress (as of 2008) In the area of research and innovation, participation of Palestinian researchers in the calls of the Framework Programme 7 (FP7) is so far relatively low (4 applicants out of 25 were main listed). Nevertheless, Palestinian research institutions could increase their participation in the research activities of FP7, particularly in the Specific International Cooperation Actions
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 58
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
targeted to the Mediterranean region in thematic aspects and challenges of mutual interest. Thanks to its reinforcement through the programme Capacities, Palestine will also be able to consolidate its S&T cooperation with Europe in the near future in a number of geographically and thematically targeted international activities opened in the FP7 – Cooperation programme.
6.3.2.6 Regional Actions: These are based on a Regional Strategy Paper (RSP) that provides a strategic framework for allocation of ENPI funding to the region; based on two complementary processes: the Euromed-Barcelona process and the European Neighbourhood Policy. This Regional Strategy Paper channels the contents of the five-year work programme into three priority objectives to be implemented at regional level: • a common Euro-Mediterranean area of justice, security and migration cooperation; • a common sustainable economic area, with a focus on trade liberalisation, regional trade integration, infrastructure networks and environmental protection; • a common sphere for socio-cultural exchanges, with a focus on cultural and people-to- people exchanges, and raising awareness of the Partnership through the media. The Regional Indicative Programme 2007-2010 transposes this policy response into concrete action programmes representing a total of € 343, 3 million.
It is worth noting that the second priority Sustainable Economic Development, addresses in particular the following fields: Energy cooperation
Environment
Support to FEMIP: FEMIP is a Euro-Mediterranean Facility to support investments in the Mediterranean partner economies, aimed at increasing the EIB commitment in the region, with the main objective to promote sustainable economic growth in the region through investments in infrastructure and especially in private sector development (but FEMIP may also finance public investment).
Development of the Information Society: The Eumedis programme (2000-2006) aimed at the funding of 21 regional pilot information society projects in five sector of intervention (Healthcare, e-Commerce, Tourism and Cultural Heritage, Research applied in industry, business and innovation, Education). It included in particular the EuMedConnect project, for the creation of the first regional research and education network in the Mediterranean region. The network started in 2004 and directly connects the research networks in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Palestine, Syria and Tunisia; its follow-up, EuMedConnect2, also funded by EuropeAid, is currently under way.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 59
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
The objectives of this line of action include: o Facilitate the integration of the Mediterranean countries into a global information society; o Contribute to bringing the ICT to the Mediterranean region via the promotion of the participation in the FP7 and the production of new content (e.g. education and culture); o Promote innovative ICT applications in priority fields like education and culture;
The expected outcomes include the extension of permanent research and education regional network serving the Mediterranean area and cooperation with the European research and education community, and it is interesting to note that the RSP states that ―The sectors most promising for a new phase are e-learning and e-culture. It should be noted that for e-learning and distance education sector the focus should be set not again only on production of contents, but more on the capacity of end users (students, trainers or long term returning students) to fully benefit from the services developed. This means: o accreditation and joint management through well established institutional co- operation (including higher education and vocational training entities); o effective delivery (via international broad band connections and local hubs); o accessibility and interoperability (based on different languages); o capacity to co-ordinate contents selection (indexation) and subsequent o knowledge management processes.
Concerning contents to be created and delivered by the system, it should be noted that a broader view on cultural contents should be assumed to integrate economic, territorial development, art and cultural heritage of the Mediterranean Area. To achieve this, the need of proper infrastructure (EUMEDCONNECT can offer the basis) as well as intelligence/know-how and skills are the basic priorities (new phase in producing and distributing applications).‖
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 60
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
6.3.2.7 Inter-regional actions:
These are based on the ENPI Interregional programme (2007-2013, IRP, LINK), and implemented via an Indicative Programme 2007-2010; its main priorities and associated budget are:
The main components of priority 2 are: o Promoting institutional cooperation in higher education, with the objective of modernising and strengthening higher education in the partner countries through cooperation with EU higher education institutions; the expected results include the establishment of sustainable partnerships between universities and other institutions of higher education in the EU and the Neighbourhood. This component is implemented under the Tempus programme (see LINK) o Promoting student mobility, aiming at the creation of a high-profile student scholarship programme with balanced participation of women and men with regard to countries, subjects and social origins, with sustainable results with regard to mutual understanding, increased employability for the students in their country of origin and reinforcement of partner institution capacity and links between EU and Partner country institutions of higher education. This component is for now implemented as a neighbourhood window of the Erasmus Mundus programme. The scholarship programme will be fully incorporated in the next phase of Erasmus Mundus, starting in January 2009. The Scholarship Programme will be implemented in close coordination with other activities in the higher education area, in particular Tempus.
Although these programmes cannot be directly used to fund regional network connectivity, they are worth mentioning here as elements of the case for its upgrade, as they have obvious relations with the regional development of e-learning, virtual schools and online resources for education and training.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 61
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Priority 5 is implemented as a “Neighbourhood Investment Facility” (NIF), aiming at pooling resources and leveraging loan financing, in order to mobilise additional investments to generally support the establishment of an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness involving the EU and neighbouring countries, addressing in particular the fields of energy and transport infrastructures, as well as environmental threats.
6.3.2.8 Cross-Border Cooperation The only CBC programme relevant to the Eastern Mediterranean is the Mediterranean Sea Basin programme (MED-CBC, see http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/); as its name indicates it is a multilateral programme for the Mediterranean Sea Basin, for cross border cooperation in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
It concerns Mediterranean EU Member Countries (EUMC, 7) and Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPC, 8)
The program has 4 main priorities, each with a number of measures:
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 62
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Measure 1.1 ―Support to innovation and research…‖ could be an appropriate vehicle for the funding of regional network connectivity. The programme‘s timeline is 2007-2013; its budget is 173 M€, supported by the ERDF and the EC budget. Up to 90% of costs are funded, with 10% co-funding from national or local authorities. The programme‘s ―Joint Managing Authority‖ is the autonomous region of Sardinia; it funds 2 categories of projects: o Standard projects: 500 k€ to 2 M€, 3 countries represented, with at least one EUMC and one MPC o Strategic projects: 2 – 5 M€, 4 countries represented, with at least one EUMC and one MPC
In the original programme documents, three calls for proposals were scheduled for standard projects - in 2008, 2010 and 2011 – and two for strategic projects – in 2009 and 2011. In practice the first call has been published in May 2009, devoted to Standard Projects aimed at the 4 programme priorities, with a 32 M€ budget and a deadline for September 2009, later rescheduled to October. Maximum project duration is 4 years; sub-granting is possible; at least 50% of project costs must go to Mediterranean Partner Countries.
The first Call for Strategic Projects is expected to concerns priorities 1 & 2; it has been delayed and its publication is now expected in mid-2010.
A list of compulsory priority themes has been orally announced during the programme‘s launching event held in Cagliari in July 2009: 1. Waste management
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 63
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
2. Water management 3. Solar energy 4. Agro-food 5. Sustainable tourism 6. Coastal zone management
The list is expected to be officially confirmed when the call is published, if that is indeed the case then network connectivity will not be within the scope of this call, however other calls for strategic projects are foreseen in the future, and may put forward different priorities that may be more favourable.
6.3.3 Recommendations
It appears from the above that supporting and developing e-infrastructures for Research and Education purposes, and notably the upgrading of the regional Research & Education Network, is within the scope of the ENPI. It is worth exploring how the implementation of the scenarios described in section 5 could be supported by ENPI funding.
In addition, it is worth noting that although the FP7 and ENPI are separate mechanisms with different scope and procedures, there are nonetheless several activities that could be taken on board by ENPI to support and facilitate the participation of the MPCs in the activities of FP7. These could include, for example: - the development or consolidation of National Information Point structures in MPCs; - support for the implementation of S&T Cooperation Agreements Such requests should be considered under the bilateral activities of the ENPI. In addition, activities like the networking of main research institutions or development of e-infrastructures could be considered under the multilateral activities of the ENPI.
Concerning the specific issue of supporting the upgrade of the regional REN within the ENP objective of developing ICT for sustainable economic development; it is clear that any recommendation emerging from the LinkSCEEM framework should take into account the EUMEDCONNECT process, which is itself funded within the Regional ENP framework. In particular, care should be taken not to create interferences with the ongoing discussions concerning the possible third phase of EUMEDCONNECT. LinkSCEEM and EUMEDCONNECT should coordinate their actions in order to create maximal synergies for the upgrade of network connectivity in the Mediterranean region. At the minimum, LinkSCEEM should be in a position to bring a closer proximity with the end-user communities in the Eastern Mediterranean, and to make a significant contribution towards making the scientific case for the said upgrade, and raising the awareness of the relevant policy-makers.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 64
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
In addition, LinkSCEEM can be an appropriate framework for launching more focussed actions addressing a well defined component of the regional connectivity, provided these are carefully articulated and integrated in the existing framework. An attempt in this direction has already been engineered within the LinkSCEEM2 proposal for an upgrade of the Cyprus- Jordan link, in relation to the cooperation between SESAME and the Cyprus Institute. Further efforts, notably for the implementations of the Eastern Mediterranean scenarios described in section 5, could be proposed within MED-CBC. This will be discussed in more detail in section 7.
6.4 INTERREG IVC The INTERREG IVC Programme was approved by the European Commission on 11 September 2007 and was officially launched on 21 September 2007 in Lisbon. The Managing Authority of INTERREG IVC is the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, Lille, France. The Joint Technical Secretariat is based in Lille, France.
The eligible INTERREG IVC cooperation area covers the entire territory of the European Union – including all new Member States and insular and outermost areas. The general rule is that partners coming from non-EU Member States can participate in INTERREG IVC but at their own cost. However, partners from Norway and Switzerland can make use of the respective allocations of Norwegian/Swiss funding in the program. There is currently no agreement on the harmonized use of EU funds between INTERREG IVC and IPA / ENPI (Instrument for Pre-Accession / European Neighborhood Policy Instrument).
The INTERREG IVC Program is an exchange and capitalization program which aims to improve, through the exchange of experience and good practices, the effectiveness of regional development policies. Indeed, it focuses on the identification, the analysis, and, under certain conditions, the transfer of good practices. Therefore: The ―natural‖ target group of the Program are regional and local public authorities, as these bodies are responsible for regional and local policies INTERREG IVC is fundamentally different from cross-border and transnational cooperation programs. In particular, it is not primarily dedicated to ‗implementation‘ or to ‗experimentation‘. Core activities of INTERREG IVC projects should always be related to the exchange of experiences
The program is organized around two thematic priorities related to the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas. A certain number of sub-themes are defined for each of the priorities:
Priority 1: Innovation and the knowledge economy innovation, research and technology development entrepreneurship and SMEs the information society employment, human capital and education
Priority 2: Environment and risk prevention natural and technological risks including climate change
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 65
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
water management waste prevention and management biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage including air quality energy and sustainable transport cultural heritage and landscape
It is evident that the above sub-themes are interlinked in many ways, within and even between the two priorities. Therefore projects can propose a cross-sectoral and integrated approach where appropriate. However, each project has still to select only one sub-theme and have a clear focus on a specific regional policy issue.
Two types of interventions are possible: Regional Initiative Projects and Capitalization Projects. Regional Initiative Projects are ―classic‖ interregional cooperation projects focusing on the exchange of experiences and the identification, analysis, dissemination and possible transfer of good practices. They have to focus on one of the above sub-themes which are closely related to the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. In addition, activities can go from traditional networking activities to transfer of experience and/or implementation of pilot projects, and even light ‗mini-programs‘. A mini-program is a project with a limited number of partners (maximum 8) developing a joint framework for interregional cooperation that will be implemented through a limited number of sub-projects (maximum 12) developed via calls for proposals in the participating regions. Regardless of the intensity of cooperation, all Regional Initiative Projects (including mini-programs) must have a particular focus on the exchange of experience at policy level.
Capitalization Projects (including Fast Track Projects) are interregional cooperation projects focusing specifically on the transfer of regional development good practices into Structural Funds mainstream programs. Fast Track projects are Capitalization projects which benefit from additional expertise from the European Commission in order to contribute to the Regions of Economic Change initiative. Based on its ―assessment questions‖, the European Commission will identify the possible Fast Track projects from the submitted Capitalization projects. The Monitoring Committee will take the final decision. Therefore, there is no specific application to Fast Track Projects One of the expected outputs is a concrete action plan which should ideally be signed by the respective Managing Authority and relevant stakeholders in each of the participating regions. An action plan is understood as a strategic document which defines precisely how the good practices will be implemented in each participating region.
INTERREG IVC projects have to involve partners who represent at least three countries, from which at least two partners must be from EU Member States and financed under the INTERREG IVC program.
As the INTERREG IVC program is the only cooperation program covering the whole Europe, it is recommended that partnerships cover a wide EU area. In particular, the geographical coverage should in principle go much beyond cross-border or transnational cooperation programs. It is recommended that: for basic intensity cooperation projects, the partnership can
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 66
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
involve between 8 and 20 partners, for medium intensity cooperation projects, the partnership should not exceed 10 to 15 partners. The partnership must lie within a range from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 8 partners for high intensity cooperation projects (i.e. mini-programs).
The total ERDF budget available for commitments to operations during the period 2007 to 2013 amounts to 302 million EUR, which will be matched with national co-financing. Under the INTERREG IVC, project activities are co-financed by the ERDF at either 75% or 85% depending on the Member State in which the partner is physically located: - 75% for partners coming from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK; - 85% for partners coming from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
In conclusion, it seems that INTERREG IVC cannot fund the LinkSCEEM network initiative. However, a potential upgrade or partial replacement of the existing link between Greece and Cyprus might be within the scope of the program as long as the national cross-border programs include the option of funding better ICT connections. This could contribute to the upgrade of the link between the Cyprus NREN and the GEANT network; provided careful coordination with the existing international links.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 67
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From a general perspective, it appears that the financial and political constraints on the upgrading of the regional network connectivity are interrelated. In the short term the bandwidth cost appears as the main obstacle, however the creation of policies for providing bandwidth at reasonable cost for academic research and educational activities must be impulsed at the political level. Projects such as LinkSCEEM can contribute to this objective by preparing the scientific case for connectivity at the regional scale, through the assessment of needs of the scientific community, and evaluating possible solutions through the present network study.
Through the analysis carried out within WP2 it has become obvious that there is a great deal of interest within the Eastern Mediterranean countries insofar as computational resources are concerned, and the need for related research and training programs fully justify significant networking requirements. Of course, procuring such a network is not an easy task. Though a large variety of cable infrastructures exist, the majority are submarine ones, with high costs and limited availability in some cases. Fortunately, the influence of market competition, although slower than in other regions of the world, should have a positive influence on the situation, and the evidence of real deployment capability, as shown in the framework of the EUMEDCONNECT project, is another encouraging factor.
It is clear that network connectivity has emerged as an obvious concern for the scientific communities in the whole region. Only Greece, Israel and possibly Turkey have a different status in that respect because of their high bandwidth connections to GEANT, however the scientific communities in these countries are also interested in regional connectivity. This topic was stressed in quasi-all meetings organized within the project, as reported in [R2]. It seems that the consensus among users is that this problem is more political than technical. The solution requires both large investments by governments and cooperation among them. In addition, even if financing could be found in order to lease more bandwidth, the possibility of connecting through Israel will be problematic for several countries.
The study conducted within the present WP is clearly relevant to the needs and demands of the regional scientific communities; it aims to contribute to a coherent regional strategy for the upgrade of network connectivity. Indeed LinkSCEEM aims to contribute both to the scientific case for upgraded bandwidth, and to providing a clear picture of the technical, infrastructural, political and financial context, thus covering all the components involved in the interaction of the scientific communities with the relevant decision makers in order to favor the desired upgrade. It also aims to contribute to the identification and assessment of different options for the said upgrade, and to make recommendations for their implementation.
LinkSCEEM has worked in coordination with the EUMEDCONNECT project, and intends to continue to support its effort as it did by participating in the EU-Med2 event in November 2008. Discussions on a LinkSCEEM contribution to a case study for the upgrade of regional network connectivity are currently taking place and expected to be presented at the next
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 68
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
EuMed event, scheduled for March 2010 in Brussels. It is clear that the networking/incubation/outreach process conducted within LinkSCEEM can be a major asset for the upgrade of regional network connectivity.
In parallel, the present WP has explored how direct contacts with stakeholders in the region (both connectivity providers such as local NRENs and HPC and connectivity end-users) can provide insight into the local context and on the political barriers that the issue has met, and how they might be lifted in the future. In addition, the networking and outreach activities conducted within the project have contributed to raising the awareness about the importance of network connectivity within the relevant communities, which will prepare a favourable context for the emergence of adequate political initiatives.
There is of course an obvious overlap between EUMEDCONNECT and the present LinkSCEEM Network Study, which is due to the Levant region that both projects are referring to. However, LinkSCEEM is Cyprus oriented, so that the present study puts an emphasis on connectivity options that assume Cyprus to be a main termination point, directly or indirectly, of the NREN traffic generated in Levant countries. On the other hand, EUMEDCONNECT has a much broader geographical coverage (being extended to North Africa countries too) and can capitalize on the previous experience acquired during the two phases carried out to date in aspects of procurement processes and network deployment, operation and management.
The objectives and geographical coverage of EUMEDCONNECT imply a significant difference in terms of network architecture. Within the EUMEDCONNECT context the network design aims at ensuring interconnection of MENA countries to the GEANT network. This can lead EUMEDCONNECT to investigate several connectivity options that do not necessarily consider Cyprus as regional hub.
It is clear that EUMEDCONNECT, which encompasses virtually all the NRENS of the Mediterranean basin, should remain the principal framework for the connectivity upgrade process. As mentioned above, connectivity related initiatives taken within the LinkSCEEM framework should be carefully coordinated with EUMEDCONNECT activities, at the technical, procurement and organisational/governance levels, in order not to duplicate existing efforts, and to obtain maximal synergy. Since the geographical scope of LinkSCEEM is included in that of EUMEDCONNECT, if LinkSCEEM initiatives succeed in generating additional network related activities it will certainly be advantageous that procuring connectivity services be executed globally in order to achieve better pricing due to volume discounts and negotiations over a much higher scale of services.
A related issue is that the designation of Cyprus as a EUMEDCONNECT POP depends on its network dynamics in terms of network coverage, supply competition and connectivity cost, which could be well influenced by focussed initiatives emerging from the LinkSCEEM process, such as the connectivity component of the LinkSCEEM2 proposal.
Practical recommendations for the implementation of the present study should include:
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 69
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
1. Close contact and interaction with EUMEDCONNECT in order to streamline the roles of the two processes for network optimization and objectives fulfillment to take place 2. Firm pricing collection, possibly through an RFI process so that pricing update can occur along with delivery timeframes and certain discount policies 3. Further exploration of ENPI funding tools, which appear to be the most appropriate and promising instruments for development in the field of the study 4. Lobbying amongst Levant countries so that they can communicate their needs in a coordinated manner, and help lobby their administration for a regional network upgrade
From a more specific and practical perspective, the LinKSCEEM2 proposal - a follow-up and implementation phase to the present project, recently submitted to the FP7-Capacities call for e-infrastructures (Topic: INFRA-2010-1.2.3: Virtual Research Communities) - contains a limited connectivity component aiming at an upgrade of the Cyprus-Jordan link to 155 Mb/s. The LinkSCEEM2 project is based on the Integrated Infrastructure Initiative model (I3/CP- CSA); its main objectives are the linking of e-resources into an integrated simulation platform, and the build-up and engagement of regional scientific communities in the fields of climate science, digital cultural heritage and synchrotron research. The projected connectivity component is closely related to the field of synchrotron research, and specifically to the collaboration with SESAME. The fact that the connectivity upgrade be tightly geared to specific research collaboration is considered a prerequisite for the funding of connectivity within FP7, a program in which the primary objective is scientific research, and not development. If the LinkSCEEM2 proposal is successful, its connectivity component will be carried out by the Jordanian, Israeli and Cypriot NRENs, in close collaboration with DANTE, so that the link to the EUMEDCONNECT process will be obvious.
Furthermore, and notably for the implementation of the network upgrade scenarios described in section 5, it appears from the analysis above that the most promising source of funding is the ENPI. Within the regional ENPI-south framework, the need to avoid interferences with the ongoing EUMEDCONNECT process probably implies that unless a specific political opportunity appears, LinkSCEEM should limit its role to bringing support and helping build the case for EUMEDCONNECT‘s further development.
It thus appears that the most adequate vehicle for implementing the Eastern Mediterranean network scenarios described is the MED-CBC program. As mentioned above, e- infrastructures and ICT in general are not within the expected priorities of the first MED-CBC strategic call; however that may change in the future, since these themes are within the objectives of the program as a whole. It is worth noting that the ring topology may appear more truly region-oriented and thus more favorable for ENPI funding, while the more Cyprio- centric star topology, making the role of Cyprus as a regional hub more visible, may generate more support from the Cyprus government. Such network design issues, as well as the related organisational and financial ones, should be explored further so that the regional stakeholders are ready to submit a proposal as soon as an appropriate call appears within MED-CBC.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 70
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Naturally such an upgrade focused on the Eastern Mediterranean should be well integrated into the EUMEDCONNECT network, both in terms of procurement and in terms of traffic management. A number of related organizational, governance and management issues would need to be addressed in coordination with EUMEDCONNECT, depending notably on the topology and timeline of the network upgrade.
One recurring and crucial issue is the long term sustainability of the process; as mentioned above in most of the cases considered, no dark fibers or IRU type contracts are available, so that it appears that the business model will remain based on the leasing for limited duration, i.e. a few years, of lines from telecom operators (or consortia thereof), through tenders such as those carried out by EUMEDCONNECT. This of course implies that the financial structure will remain OPEX based, and that the sustainability of the process depends on that of the political support from the sources of funding, be they at national or European level.
The option based on terrestrial fibers may bring an interesting alternative, in opening the door to IRU type contracts, hopefully within an affordable CAPEX cost. Another very interesting possibility, that may be accessible within a shorter timeline, is to envisage lease contracts with an option for converting to IRU at the end of the agreed lease period; in this model, European (egg ENPI) funding would cover the OPEX costs of the lease period, which would hopefully bring a clear demonstration of the added value of the network upgrade to the regional scientific community, so that at the end of the period the presence of an active community of users would clearly show the need for and value of a sustainable solution, which the relevant national authorities could implement cheaply by using the option of converting the lease to an IRU contract.
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 71
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
APPENDIX : COUNTRY BRIEFS
1 CYPRUS
Cyprus in general: The area of the Republic of Cyprus under government control has a market economy dominated by the service sector, which accounts for 78% of GDP. Tourism, financial services, and real estate are the most important sectors. Erratic growth rates over the past decade reflect the economy's reliance on tourism, which often fluctuates with political instability in the region and economic conditions in Western Europe. Nevertheless, the economy in the area under government control grew by an average of 3.6% per year during the period of 2000-06, well above the EU average. Construction and tourism slow in the face of reduced foreign demand triggered by the ongoing global financial crisis. Growth is expected to slow to 2%, which would be its lowest level since 2003. As in the area administered by Turkish Cypriots, water shortages are a perennial problem; a few desalination plants are now on line.
ICT Statistics 2008 –Cyprus Population 863.624 GDP ($US) – 2007 21.275.682.018 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2007) 44,89 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 115,64 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2006) 38,36 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 38,00 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 11,70
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 72
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 1.370 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (2002) 56,94 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2006) 35,76 % population covered by mobile signal (2007) 99,98
2 EGYPT
Egypt in general: Over the last few years, Egypt has implemented a series of important economic reforms which have led to a solid macroeconomic performance. Real economic growth rose to 6.9 percent in 2006, 7 percent in 2007 and a projected 6.2 percent in 2008 after the anemic 3 percent during 2001-03. Total investment is around 18-19 percent of GDP with private investment rising to over 12 percent of GDP. Social indicators have improved dramatically over the last decade (e.g., between 1995 and 2005, infant mortality and malnutrition among under-5 children both decreased by half, and life expectancy increased from 53 to 71 years between 1970 and 2005). Recent reforms have resulted in a substantial reduction of poverty from 23.4 percent of the population living with less than $1 per day in 2005 to 18.9 percent of the population in 2008. Current challenges can be a) Inflation and food crisis, b) Fiscal deficit and public domestic debt, c) Unemployment
ICT Statistics 2008 – Egypt Population 76.840.047 GDP ($US) – 2007 131.095.811.819 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2007) 14,87
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 73
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 39,82 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 4,87 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 13,95 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 0,63 International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 10.771 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (1985) 24,87 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2005) 24,31 % population covered by mobile signal (2007) 93,50
3 JORDAN
Jordan in general: Jordan is notably resource-poor, with limited agricultural land, no oil resources, and considerably scarce water. The population is urbanized at around 80 percent, and is one of the youngest among lower-middle income countries, with 38 percent under the age of 14. Total population is expected to reach almost 7 million by 2015. Notwithstanding the difficult regional political environment and the lack of resources, Jordan has achieved above-average development outcomes compared to other lower middle-income countries. This favorable situation can be credited to sound development policies, high capital inflows over the last four years in particular, and to one of the world's highest levels of unilateral transfers, in the form of workers‘ remittances and public grants, together amounting to around 22 percent of GDP.
Jordan‘s economy has shown strong performance in recent years and real growth—averaging 7 percent during the 2004-07 periods—continues to be robust at 6 percent in 2007. However, Jordan remains vulnerable to possible adverse external events, such as the evolution of world
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 74
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
oil and food prices, the level of foreign grants, the regional security situation, and the flows of short-term external capital. In terms of human development, Jordan is above average with respect to lower middle-income countries. These positive results are based on consistent levels of spending—more than 25 percent of GDP—on human development (education, health, pensions, and social safety nets). In addition, Jordan ensures a high level of gender parity in access to basic public services. In education, the Government launched in 2003 a comprehensive cutting-edge modernization program, aimed at overhauling the basic education system to align with the needs of a knowledge-based economy.
ICT Statistics 2008 –Jordan Population 6.118.923 GDP ($US) – 2007 15.832.581.100 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2007) 9,88 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 80,54 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2006) 6,34 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 19,02 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 1,45 International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 936 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (1997) 36,09 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2006) 20,73 % population covered by mobile signal (2007) 99,00
4 ISRAEL
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 75
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Israel in general: Israel has a technologically advanced market economy with substantial, though diminishing, and government participation. It depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment. Despite limited natural resources, Israel has intensively developed its agricultural and industrial sectors over the past 20 years. Cut diamonds, high-technology equipment, and agricultural products (fruits and vegetables) are the leading exports. Israel usually posts sizable trade deficits, which are covered by large transfer payments from abroad and by foreign loans. Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, its major source of economic and military aid. Israel's GDP, after contracting slightly in 2001 and 2002 due to the Palestinian conflict and troubles in the high-technology sector, has grown by about 5% per year since 2003. The economy grew an estimated 4.2% in 2008, slowed by the global financial crisis. The government's prudent fiscal policy and structural reforms over the past few years have helped to induce strong foreign investment, tax revenues, and private consumption, setting the economy on a solid growth path.
ICT Statistics 2008 – Israel Population 7.044.501 GDP ($US) – 2007 161.824.015.112 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2006) 43,88 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 128,50 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2003) 25,02 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 28,87 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 22,06 International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 14.379 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (1997) 51,99 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2005) 33,98 % population covered by mobile signal (2006) 99,70
5 LEBANON
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 76
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Lebanon in general: Lebanon‘s GDP grew rapidly during the reconstruction phase (1991– 1997) yet decelerated thereafter, with a recession in 2000. Before the hostilities with Israel in the summer of 2006, per capita income was almost five times higher than at the end of the civil war. Social indicators had been gradually returning to pre-1975 levels for Lebanon‘s population of over 4 million. From 1990 to 2006, primary school enrolment increased from 73 to 94 percent and the youth literacy rate increased from 92 to 96 percent. The hostilities in July-August 2006 were followed by a prolonged political impasse, which lasted through May 2008. Economic performance deteriorated in 2006 as a whole despite a strong first half with a loss of output from the hostilities estimated at about US$1.3 billion. The economy showed some signs of recovery in 2007, but this was not sufficient to offset the flat growth experienced in 2006. The resilience of the Lebanese economy has been demonstrated by its ability to recover following the civil war, the recent hostilities and the prolonged political crisis amid continued regional uncertainty. The economy relies on large amounts of short- term capital transfers from abroad. As it rebuilds again, Lebanon needs to strike a balance between maintaining fiscal stability and continuing to spend on development. Education reform poses a particular challenge, especially in terms of training graduates with the skills that the labor market currently demands. A greater emphasis needs to be placed on technical and vocational training opportunities that could help bridge the gap between labor supply and demand.
ICT Statistics 2008 –Lebanon Population 4.142.299 GDP ($US) – 2001 16.709.120.000 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2006) 18,85 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 30,74 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2006) 11,62 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 38,30 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 4,88
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 77
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 373 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (2001) 26,87 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2006) 38,73 % population covered by mobile signal (2006) 100,00
6 PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Palestine in general: Since the advent of the Caretaker Government in June 2007, the international community has channelled substantial financial and technical assistance to the PA to reverse the impacts of the recent aid sanctions on Palestinian institutions. This, in addition to a revival of discussions towards a peace agreement by the end of 2008, led to a new momentum in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. However, these positive developments remain challenged by the isolation of almost half of the Palestinian population within the Gaza Strip and by the continued violence arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and within the Palestinian Territories. Combined with the tightening Israeli restrictions on movement and access, and continued settlement expansion, the result is a Palestinian economy that is unable to sustain itself and its population under the current circumstances.
ICT Statistics 2008 – Palestine Population 4.146.784 GDP ($US) – 2002 3.015.000.000 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2007) 9,31 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 27,46 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2005) 5,27 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 9,52 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 1,49 International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 1.200 Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (2002) 12,16 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2004) 15,86 % population covered by mobile signal (2006) 95,00
7 TURKEY
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 78
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Turkey in general: Turkey is an upper middle-income country, a member of the OECD and a country which successfully recovered from a deep economic crisis in 2001. It is a dynamic emerging-market economy strategically located between Europe and Asia. Over 73 percent of its people live in urban areas. Agriculture accounts for some 11 percent of its GDP, industry for 29.5 percent, and services for 59.5 percent. Turkey‘s economy is among the world's 20 largest. Extreme poverty is low, at about 1 percent, but poverty affects over 20 percent of Turkey's population. Notwithstanding the good economic performance of recent years, macroeconomic vulnerabilities remain. The country's current account deficit (5.7 percent in 2007 and forecast at 6.6 percent in 2008) implies a heavy reliance on foreign capital inflows. Turkey‘s development agenda focuses on a vision of Turkey with stable growth, a more equitable income distribution, and increased global competitiveness, as the country transforms into an information society and completes EU harmonization. Development priorities are therefore clustered around improved competitiveness and employment, equitable human and social development, efficient provision of high-quality public services, and energy security and efficiency, with an emphasis on the reduction of regional disparities.
ICT Statistics 2008 – Turkey Population 75.829.891 GDP ($US) – 2007 657.101.313.609 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (2007) 24,31 Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 82,77 Computers per 100 inhabitants (2006) 5,93 Internet users per 100 inhabitants (2007) 16,24 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants (2007) 6,08 International Internet bandwidth (Mbps) (2007) 102.000
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 79
NETWORK STUDY INITIAL FINDINGS
Radio sets per 100 inhabitants (2002) 53,65 TV sets per 100 inhabitants (2006) 42,77 % population covered by mobile signal (2007) 98,01
RI-222904 © Members of the LinkSCEEM Project PUBLIC 80