Cooperation Fair 2016 S.O. 2.1: Low Carbon Technologies

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Report on the Implementation of the EUSBSR Anders Lindholm European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy.
Advertisements

Samuele Dossi DG for Regional Policy - Evaluation
WP4 – 4.1 and 4.2 Preparatory activities for the creation of the WATERMODE permanent network 1 Technical Committee Meeting Venice, June 24-25, 2010 VENETO.
Electric Vehicles Industrial Cluster - NPO IKEM Corp. (Business entity of EVIC) Changing the Government Agenda of EU's poorest countries using the power.
New opportunities for regional development through cross-border cooperation Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development November 16,
The Energy and Environment Partnership with the Mekong Region EEP Mekong Information Seminars.
„South East Europe Programme” as a financing opportunity for projects in the Danube region and complementarity to other instruments COMPLEMENTARITY OF.
North West Europe Cooperation Programme David Kelly Assistant Director.
CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: focus on activities and partnership JTS CENTRAL EUROPE PROGRAMME.
LEADER -The acronym ‘LEADER' derives from the French words "Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économique Rurale“ which means, ‘Links between.
The Knowledge Resources Guide The SUVOT Project Sustainable and Vocational Tourism Rimini, 20 October 2005.
Leonardo da Vinci Project BLENDED LEARNING TRANSFER Rationalising, Learning and Transferring the use of technological platforms to enterprise-based learning.
Igor Kaniecki | Joint Secretariat Interreg South Baltic Programme
EU-Regional Policy Structural actions 1 LESSONS FROM THE THEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE TERRITORIAL EMPLOYMENT PACTS Veronica Gaffey, DG Regional.
The NAMA Facility – Support for the Implementation of NAMAs.
Planned Commission Communication on the role of the Private Sector in Development A contribution to the reflexion on How to Innovate International Cooperation.
Strategic Priorities of the NWE INTERREG IVB Programme Harry Knottley, UK representative in the International Working Party Lille, 5th March 2007.
“ BIRD Project“ 1 Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Broadband Access, Innovation & Regional Development” Project Description Ulrich.
Conference on regional governance in a global context The experience of Emilia Romagna Morena Diazzi Managing Authority ERDF ROP
Participation in 7FP Anna Pikalova National Research University “Higher School of Economics” National Contact Points “Mobility” & “INCO”
Regional and Urban Policy Expected Results for Low Carbon Economy and Transport Ivanka Lakova and Jan Marek Ziółkowski Evaluation and European Semester.
Measuring benefits of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes – Piloting of Typology 22 February 2011.
R&D STRATEGIES IN SUPPORT OF INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION Arm.Dpt. ROMANIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ARMAMENTS DEPARTMENT 01 November 2007.
1 Possible elements for the EGTT future programme of work on technologies for adaptation Mr. Jukka Uosukainen Chair Expert Group on Technology Transfer.
CLUSTERING PROJECT Oto Hudec Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice.
Interreg IIIB Trans-national cooperation: Budget comparison : 440 million EURO 420 m EURO (Interreg IIC prog.) + 20 m EURO (Pilot Actions)
BioEnergy Sustaining The Future 2 BESTF2 Briefing Event 11 th December 2013 Dr Megan Cooper, BESTF co-ordinator.
SIMONA MURRONI Bruxelles - June 27th 2013 Bridging lessons learned from the past with new planning and delivery approaches in the energy sector.
Cooperation Fair 2016 S.O. 1.1: Improve the framework conditions for the delivery of innovation, in relation to smart specialisation.
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND CLUE final conference, 24 September 2014, Turin EU Interregional Cooperation State of play and perspectives Johanna.
Chairman of the Board and CEO,
Annex III to BS/SC/PDF/A(2003)1
Creating a culture of innovation
CEF Action n° 2016-EU-SA-0009 "CYnergy"
Priority 4: Supporting the Shift Towards a
Follow up to ex post evaluation of INTERREG III
European Commission “Intelligent Energy for Europe”
Interreg V-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme
Esteban PELAYO WATIFY 30th of June 2017 Connecting European Chambers
Part 2: How to ensure good project management?
Thematic platform 1 Competitiveness & Attractivness
Hidefumi Imura Professor, Nagoya University
Prepared by BSP/PMR Results-Based Programming, Management and Monitoring Presentation to Geneva Group - Paris Hans d’Orville Director, Bureau of Strategic.
Eurostat Management Plan for Regional and Urban statistics
HyTrEc2 Hydrogen Transport Economy for the North Sea Region 2
ESF and Social Partners
Workshop with the 8 PAF related Proposals & the Habitats Committee
27 November 2014 Mantas Sekmokas
EU-RUSSIA Cooperation in Energy Efficiency
The partnership principle in the implementation of the CSF funds ___ Elements for a European Code of Conduct.
Work Programme 2012 COOPERATION Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Challenge 6.1 Coping with climate change European Commission Research.
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
Digital Innovation Hubs – An overview Parallel session in Agri-Food Working Committee Bilbao, 28 November 2018 Annita Kalpaka, Policy Analyst JRC Unit.
ENI CBC Joint Operational Programme Black Sea Basin
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,
Directorate General Information Society & Media
Juan Gonzalez eGovernment & CIP operations
Information on projects
Thematic workshop 2 – Smart Energy Systems Brussels, 8 November 2013
INNOVATION DEALS: A NEW APPROACH TO REGULATION
Module No 6: Building Capacity in Rural Micro-Enterprises
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development
‘Regional Policy contributing to Sustainable Growth in EU 2020’
Project intervention logic
INFORMATION SEMINAR Interreg V-A Latvia-Lithuania programme
Industrial Value Chain: A Bridge Towards a Carbon Neutral Europe
France (Channel) England Programme
Forestry Statistics Working Group February 2015, Luxembourg "Current and future requirements for forestry data– DG AGRI" Tamas Szedlak AGRI H4 DG.
© Fresh Thoughts Consulting
Project intervention logic
Presentation transcript:

Cooperation Fair 2016 S.O. 2.1: Low Carbon Technologies

Objectives of the session Detail what the Programme wants to achieve in this S.O Elaborate how your project can contribute to that result

Organisation of the session What we want to tell you: Results MS seek to achieve Result oriented = measurability Type of actions Target groups Some points of attention And now: a practical exercise!

I. What we want to tell you

1. Result the MS seek to achieve Increase the adoption of low-carbon technologies and applications in sectors that have the potential for a high reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

Low-carbon technologies & applications versus greenhouse gas emissions Technologies that can reduce the actual output of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Technologies that shall reduce carbon dependency

Adoption Implementation projects, focused on application of such technologies through pilot actions, demonstrations, investments, et cetera No project focus on research & development of such technologies (technological innovation is SO 1.2)

Priority Sectors Renewable energies Transport Agriculture Manufacturing industries Building  Coastal / Maritime location having priority

Intervention of practitioner: Q&A with the public How does your project ensure an actual adoption of low-carbon technologies and applications? How does this contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions? To which priority sector is your project related?

2. Result oriented = measurability ID Output indicator Target value OI 2.1 Number of solutions (methods/tools/services) established to increase the adoption of low-carbon technologies 57 OI 2.2 Number of tests, pilots, demonstration actions and feasibility studies implemented related to the adoption of low-carbon technologies 27 OI 2.3 Number of small scale physical or e-infrastructures/equipments related to the adoption of low-carbon technologies partly or entirely supported by the operations 8

Output Indicator 2.1 ‘Solutions’ established at a cross-border scale… Solutions = methods, tools and services which pave the way for an eventual increased adoption of low-carbon technologies. Examples: monitoring system measuring the level of renewable energy, collaborative platform, joint methodologies on adoption in public buildings et cetera, which aim at the implementation of preparatory collaboration.  Clearly, the ‘softer’ output indicator, no adoption of low-carbon technologies yet.

Output Indicator 2.2 1. Tests, pilots, demonstration actions carried out in a cross-border context on products, services, mechanisms, … through the adoption of low carbon technologies. 2. Feasibility studies, socio-economic demand analysis, … which pave the way to the wide-scale implementation of the project outputs or lead to investments in small scale infrastructure or equipment related to adoption of low carbon technologies.  Clearly, a ‘harder’ output indicator, heavily focused on adoption of low-carbon technologies.

Output Indicator 2.3 Small scale physical or e-infrastructure & equipment related to the adoption of low carbon technologies. Can relate to the implementation of the pilot or demonstrations of the project. Can be the final delivery of the project, for an improved situation at cross-border scale.  Clearly, a ‘harder’ output indicator, heavily focused on investments related to the adoption of low-carbon technologies.

Intervention of practitioner: Q&A with the public Which outputs does your project envisage to produce? Could you elaborate on their nature? Which output indicators do these outputs therefore contribute to?

3. Type of actions to be supported Development Adoption Prepare for investments Investments Development: eventual production of useful materials, devices, processes, systems, or methods, including the design and development of prototypes and processes. This might include full-scale tests and experimentations. Adoption: “transfer” of existing technological solutions in a specific field of application. This might include large scale tests and experimentations. Prepare for investments: to pave the way to new infrastructure or services, but not directly co-fund them (e.g. feasibility study, preparation of a technical study,, etc...) Investment: material investments, provided that these investments demonstrate cross-border relevance and contribute to the objectives of the 2 Seas Programme (e.g. purchase of equipment for pilot or demonstration purposes or realisation of physical infrastructure or e-infrastructure).

Development… Type of action in the CP … of comparative pilot actions to test and demonstrate innovative low-carbon technologies and applications. Applied to a concrete proposal Development of a shared methodology to… Development of a measuring tool to… Development of a new service to… Development of a new digital solution to… …increase renewable energy production, which will be tested through pilot actions.

Adoption (or transfer) … Type of actions in the CP … of low-carbon technologies to increase the use of energy from renewable sources; … of identical or similar innovative low-carbon technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. Applied to a concrete proposal ‘The project aims at adopting complementary low carbon technologies in comparable small ports based on an existing example in X, which will be evaluated and made replicable for all 2 Seas ports.’

Prepare for investments… Type of action in the CP … in the further roll-out of low-carbon technologies. Applied to a concrete proposal Feasibility study, preparation of a technical study, socio-economic demand analysis, et cetera required for investments in low carbon technologies.

Investment… Type of action in the CP … in low carbon technologies, for instance to: enable demonstrations of innovative low-carbon applications; realise innovative small-scale infrastructures for renewable energy generation, production and distribution. Applied to a concrete proposal Infrastructure works on a project demonstration site that include low carbon technologies, such as equipment that will reduce GHG emissions (solar panels, for example).

Intervention of practitioner: Q&A with the public What kind of actions are foreseen in your project? How do these fit with the categories presented in the previous slides? Could you relate those activities to the outputs that they are supposed to lead to?

4. Who? Our target groups: Local, regional and national authorities and their affiliated bodies; Universities and research centres; Public and private energy suppliers; Companies, in particular small and medium sized enterprises developing low-carbon technology; Economic operators (energy, building, transport, logistics, fisheries, ports, etc.); Energy agencies, and non-governmental bodies acting in support of the transition to a low-carbon economy; Non-for-profit organisations. Make combinations because remember the kind of partnerships we would like to see: multi sector, multi disciplinary, unusual partnerships, quadruple helix

Intervention of practitioner: Q&A with the public Which target groups as per CP are included/involved in your project? How will you associate other target groups that are not directly involved, for instance through an observer partner or dissemination actions?

5. Some points of attention MS seek to achieve adoption of low-carbon technologies: R&D activities cannot be the focus of a SO 2.1 project (those fall under SO 1.2)! Arguments why you applied for a cross-border cooperation project instead of national funding are important.

Intervention of practitioner: Q&A with the public How do you tackle the CBC aspect in your project? What is its added-value?

II. And now: a practical exercise!

Adoption ‘The main aim of the project is to jointly develop a service which will encourage SMEs to undertake a behavioural change in their energy consumption by switching to renewable energy production.’ ‘The project explores a set of low carbon technologies through different demonstration actions in the partner cities.’ First example -> can only be accepted when it leads to testing and adoption of LCT during the project. Second example -> good example: clearly shows adoption of LCT. Of course, your application form is always evaluated as a whole. Having a good / bad phrase does not mean you will have a good / bad project.

Priority sectors ‘The project will test tidal and wave power technologies through the development and verification of new standards and certification schemes for marine energy technologies.’ ‘The project will result in a much greener tourism sector, which will benefit the local economy.’ Example 1 = renewable energy sector = priority sector. Example 2 = tourism sector, which is too broad. Can be accepted if it applies a focus at a part of the tourism sector (for example, transport GHG emissions as a result of coastal tourism or hotel buildings that should reduce their carbon consumption).

Types of actions & outputs Type of action Produced output Preparation of a policy document through a governmental working group on carbon reduction in public buildings. A joint strategy by which the local governments involved in the project commit to reducing their carbon consumption. Preparation of a methodology regarding carbon reduction in public buildings through a governmental working group. A jointly developed methodology on carbon reduction in public buildings which will be tested by the local governments involved in the project. Preparation of a policy document = formulation -> not sought after in SO 2.1! Preparation of a methodology = development -> sought after in SO 2.1! Moreover, it will be tested through pilots in public buildings -> implementation project, contribution to OI 2.1.2.

Partnership Partner Member State Typology University of Lille FR Higher education and research Business park management authority Breda NL Private sector representation Province of Antwerp BE/FL Regional public authority Not for profit organisation Kent UK Interest groups including NGO’s Balanced partnership in terms of geography and typology of partners. Triple helix structure present.

Partnership Partner Member State Typology University of Greenwich UK Higher education and research Hogeschool West-Vlaanderen BE/FL University of Ghent Haute Ecole des Ingénieurs FR Not very much balanced in terms of typology. Moreover, it could be questiond if a pure higher education and research partnership is capable of carrying out applied / implementation projects (as opposed to pure research which is not sought after under SO 2.1).

Thank you for your attention!