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 plan as the “research arm” Maximising synergies, forming critical mass and identifying research priorities www.eera-set.eu 2

3. EERA Joint Programmes, Strategy Basics 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 3 Example from JP Bioenergy

4. Monitoring of Joint Programmes  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 Since 2011 ! 4  This year, JPs AMPEA, CSP, Energy Storage, FCH and Ocean energies have just been reviewed.

5. The 2014 EERA JPs review: the process  The reviewers were selected in September 2013.  They received first general information on EERA in November 2013.  In January 2014, they received from the JPs documents including the Description of Work, the Management Report, the Progress Report.  In February and March 2014 were held physical meetings between reviewers, JPMB and the responsible ExCos named for facilitating the review exercise.  From these documents, these meetings and any other necessary 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 ExCo Review FacilitatorsReviewers JPLeadSupportMain authorOther reviewers AMPEA Brigitte Bach (AIT) Harald Bolt (FZ Jülich) Marie-Louise Saboungi (professor, University of Orléans, France) Bruce Parkinson (University of Wyoming, USA) and Klaus Rissbacher (Plansee SE, Austria) CSP Hervé Bernard (CEA) Cayetano Lopez (CIEMAT) Dr Luis Crespo (Secretary General of Protermosola, President of ESTELA, Spain) Michaeul Geyer, Abengoa Sola, South Africa Dr Luis Crespo (Secretary General of Protermosola, President of ESTELA, Spain) FCH John Loughhead (UKERC) Hans Hvidtfeldt Larsen (DTU) Daria Vladikova (professor and director, Bulgaria Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria) Dr. Karl Foeger (Ceramic Fuell Cells Limited, Germany) Daria Vladikova (IEEA, member of FCH-JU Scientific Committee, Bulgaria) J. Robert Selman, (Distinguished Research Professor (Retired), USA) Ocean Energy Paul Korting (ECN) Unni Steinsmo (SINTEF) Marta Nogaj (EDF R&D (Paris), Poland) Eoin Sweeney (Consultant on marine energy, Ireland) Christina Huertas (Abengoa Seapower, Portugal) Energy Storage Teresa Leao (LNEG) Gian Piero Celata (ENEA) Dr. Marcel Meeus (CEO consulting company SESTESCO, Belgium) Dr. Andreas Hauer ( ZAE, Bavaria, Germany) Prof. Joong Kee Lee (KIST, Korea)

7. Criteria used for the evaluation −Relevance and sustainability of the joint programme −Scientific outputs and/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. 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). www.eera-set.eu SYNTHESIS Report – conclusions (2/3)

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 stamp due notably to financing issues of their productions. www.eera-set.eu

12. EERA should increase the visibility of its activities that 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 implementation in 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 research in order to maintain the excellence in the scientific output. www.eera-set.eu SYNTHESIS Report - recommendations

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