EERA congress 2014 – Session on review of the EERA Joint Programmes

1. EERA congress 2014 – Session on review of the EERA Joint Programmes Introduction to the session by Mrs Naděžda Witzanyová EERA Executive Committee member for Centrum výzkumu Řež, Czech Republic nadezda.witzanyova@cvrez.cz Brussels, April 9th, 2014 www.eera-set.eu

2. A quick recall of what is EERA A cooperation of Energy Research Organisations • More than 250 participating organisations • About 3500 professionals full time equivalent  ready to be committed ( in-kind contributions of roughly ~ €600m ) • Open to all research organisations with a public mission • So far achievements based mainly on own resources(works also as a platform for the formation of consortia for the framework programmes) • Pre – commercial research; typical for energy research - Between industry driven and fundamental research • EERA has now launched 15 Joint Programmes • Dedicated to strategic coordination of national priorities and resources • Implementing the SET planas the “research arm” • Maximising synergies, forming critical mass and identifying research priorities www.eera-set.eu

3. EERA Joint Programmes, Strategy Basics Example from JP Bioenergy Long-term strategy and work plan • Agreed Description of Work - DoW (reviewed annually) • Agreed Objectives and Milestones • Agreed division of tasks and responsibilities among partners www.eera-set.eu

4. Monitoring of Joint Programmes Since 2011 !  This year, JPs AMPEA, CSP, Energy Storage, FCH and Ocean energies have just been reviewed. • By JP Management and Progress Reports to the Executive Committee . • By discussions on best practices with JP Coordinators. • Each JP is reviewed by independent experts. • The review concept has been adapted and optimized at each new review session. • Joint review reports discussed in an open session at the Annual EERA Congress: • In 2012 : JPs CCS, Bio-energy, Nuclear Materials and Smart Grids have been reviewed; • In 2013 JPs Geothermal, Wind, PV and Smart Cities have been reviewed; www.eera-set.eu

5. The 2014 EERA JPs review: the process • The reviewerswereselected in September 2013. • Theyreceived first general information on EERA in November 2013. • In January 2014, theyreceivedfrom the JPsdocuments including the Description of Work, the Management Report, the Progress Report. • In February and March 2014 wereheldphysical meetings betweenreviewers, JPMB and the responsibleExCosnamed for facilitating the reviewexercise.  Fromthese documents, these meetings and anyothernecessary interactions with the JPs, the reviewers have produced a written report. www.eera-set.eu

6. The 2014 EERA JPs review: the persons www.eera-set.eu

7. Criteria used for the evaluation • Relevance and sustainability of the joint programme • Scientific outputsand/or possible impacts on industry competitiveness • Structuring effect on national and European levels • Contribution of the JP to European research area completion: mobility, share of research infrastructure, international cooperation, training. www.eera-set.eu

8. SYTHESIS Report - conclusions (1/3) Relevance and sustainability • The EERA JPs are relevant: • Presence of all the major European research organizations; • Objectives are in line with the SET-Plan goals and the European Union objectives to reach a low carbon Europe. • The JPs provide a survey of the available research infrastructures in their European technological field. JPs make use of these RIs. • The JPs are flexible to new knowledge: the Description of Works (DoWs) evolved every time this was relevant for maintaining the quality of the JP. • By performing pre – commercial research the JPs are well placed among the other existing European instruments and bridge the gaps left by those ones. E.g. JTI - FCH JU is focused on applied close to the market research, and EERA JP FC&H2 generates knowledge needed in this area. www.eera-set.eu

9. SYNTHESIS Report – conclusions (2/3) www.eera-set.eu Scientific outputs and impacts on industry competitiveness • The management of the JP is fairly well conducted considering the impressive seize of the JPs .This is a challenge in the case of programmes with a wide scope of work– e.g. EERA JP Energy storage – every sub – programme is perfectly elaborated and could be almost a separate programme. • The 5 EERA JPs reviewed, despite their young “age” are already prolific in terms of scientific outputs. The challenge of which publication is an EERA publication (as the funds are basically in – kind) has to be solved in the future. • The industry interaction with EERA JPs is done through: • Partnerships with EII – JP AMPEA with EMIRI; JP ES with EASE;CSP with ESTELLA; • Workshops and conferences where both participate • through the recent Integrated Research Programmes (JP ES - IRP EESTRORIGA).

10. SYNTHESIS Report – conclusions (3/3) Structuring effect on national and European levels • Contributions to the SET Plan Integrated Roadmap are mentioned by all JPs. • Collaboration with technology platforms are crucial and work well; Energy Materials Industrial Research Initiative – EMIRI is positively mentioned by several JPs; EERA JP ES drafted a joint roadmap EASE-EERA. • For EERA JP FCH2 - Collaboration with FCH JU is realistic due to the “common roots” with N.ERGHY • ERA – NETs are a structuring tool for EU and national landscapes • National level structuring depends on the Member states research systems, but the effect is still rather weak Contribution of the JP to European research area completion • Several FP7 projects are in place like SFERAII, with focus on research mobility, training and sharing infrastructure, EU-Solaris, or H2FCINFRA project (comprehensive mapping of RIs).

11. SYNTHESIS Report - recommendations The reviewers pointed out some problems and brought recommendations to improve the JPs’ efficiency: • The number of exchanges of researchers and students in the JPs should be much increased. • The management should maintain EERA Joint Programmes as open as possible to active members while controlling the size to keep it manageable. • The link with industry could and should be much improved in order to better transfer the results of the research to the market. • Some deliverables lack the official EERA stampdue notably to financing issues of their productions. www.eera-set.eu

12. SYNTHESIS Report - recommendations www.eera-set.eu • EERA should increase the visibility of its activitiesthat will strengthen the JP influence. • EERA should try to close the gap between the proof of new concepts in laboratory or at pilot scale and their first implementationin commercial scale plants. • All reviewers emphasise that the EERA JPs lack of a sustainable and regular budget, one of the most important component for running an effective and realistic research programme. • The biggest challenge at the moment for the JP is to obtain a substantial and continuing budget for collaborative researchin order to maintain the excellence in the scientific output.

13. Thanks • To the reviewers for giving us their time and theses comprehensive and much useful JPs evaluations. • To all the persons committed and involved within the reviewed JPs for the excellent work and making everything possible. www.eera-set.eu

14. Thank you for your attention www.eera-set.eu