6. görner fnr short rotation coppice

8/3/2019 6. Grner FNR Short Rotation Coppice

1/14

Joint Call on Short Rotation Coppice:

Procedure and results so far

Karen Grner, FNR

Call secretariatFachagenturNachwachsende

Rohstoffe e.V.


2/14

Our production cycle

- Preparing the soil: planning stages

- Planting: call publication, partnering

- Pruning: pre-check and evaluation

- Harvesting: clearing and kick-off of selected projects

FachagenturNachwachsende

Rohstoffe e.V.


3/14

Planning the call setting priorities

Since late 2006, ERA-internal discussions on the possibility of a joint actionon SRC

June 2007: workshop on SRC in Berlin, Germany

Participants: researchers and funding organisations from Austria,Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK


Rohstoffe e.V.

Goals of the workshop:

Information exchange on national research and application of SRC(ongoing projects, current and future research priorities)

Overview of national research priorities

Discuss options for joint activities


4/14

Planning the call results of the workshop

Information exchange/networking: to be continued at a relevantconference later that year

Joint call: common interest in a call on

Breeding/genetics

Environmental aspects of SRC

Value chain of SRC (Storage/drying, business models, logistics)

TheseThese topicstopics werewere toto bebe takentaken furtherfurther withinwithin ERAERA--NET BioenergyNET Bioenergy

Not to be taken further: Economic studies

Site-yield studies


5/14

Planning the call preparations

Draft call text (July December 2007)

Procedures: generally, follow those used in past calls where proved

successful (e.g. evaluation criteria)

Changes due to: New partner (UK)

Feedback from researchers in past calls

Internal feedback/discussions

Discussions/information exchange mainly by e-mail and individual phonecalls, plus 2 telephone conferences of the whole team

Procedures fixed in a script (handbook for team and jury members)

Time schedule fixed

Information for jury members Internal web folder, accessible for team and jury members only

Team: France, Germany, Sweden, UK (Austria participated in planning)


6/14

Publication and partnering

publication of the joint call

Open 2nd January 1st April 2008

Published nationally by the participating funding organisations, and on theERA-NET Bioenergy website

Formal requirements: Minimum 2 partners from 2 of the countries participating in the call

National application forms/procedures, plus a common proposal in English

Affirmation sheet to avoid uncertainties regarding the structure of consortia


7/14

Publication and partnering

facilitating consortium building

Following researcher feedback from previous calls, discussion about how to

facilitate consortium building

Physical networking event too much cost (time/money) for such a small call

Each funding organisation submitted list of researchers/companies

Call secretariat compiled an overview and sent it out to the team, and tointerested researchers.


8/14

Pre-check and evaluation I

Aim: only proposals which meet all formal requirements and which fit intothe relevant national programmes go to the jury (no office rejection later)

Procedure: on national level by funding agencies, 2nd April 6th May

Result: all 7 proposals were eligible for funding

Pre-check

Jury pre-judgement

Aim: Evaluation of proposals by jury members, information exchangepreceding the jury meeting. Duration: 9th to 27th May

Procedure: Common proposals and project overview available in webfolder, plus empty evaluation form. Form filled in by relevant jury member,

but possibility for consultation

Result: 1 evaluation form/country, preliminary scores for each proposal.Available in web folder 1 day before the meeting.


9/14

Difference to previous calls: 2 members/country

1 expert 1 representative from funding agency

Combination of expert panel and strategic panel

Aim: ranking list and funding recommendations

Procedure: moderated discussion, project by project, 29th/30th May 2008

Results: 3 projects recommended for funding, 4 not recommended forfunding.

Jury members formulated joint comments, both for selected and rejectedproposals, to be used for invitation/rejection letters.

Pre-check and evaluation II

Jury meeting


10/14

Recommended proposals:

CREFF: Cost reduction and efficiency improvement of short rotation

coppice (Topic 2, France/Germany) BREDNet: Targeted breeding of a European SRC willow crop for diverse

environments & future climates (Topic 1, UK/Sweden/Germany)

RATING-SRC: Reducing environmental impacts of SRC through

evidence-based integrated decision support tools (Topic 3,Sweden/Germany[/UK])


11/14

Clearing and kick-off

Aim: Final decisions, made nationally and based on the juryrecommendations

Procedure: Usual national procedures (different in each country), supportedby continued information exchange between funding organisations

Result: Message to contractors, and eventually (depending on nationalregulations) contracts/grant agreements

Aims: presentation of consortia and of proposed research; feedback fromresearchers; networking

Procedure: one-day meeting with representatives from all project partners

and all funding agencies. Presentations and discussions.

Result: presentations available on ERA-NET Bioenergy website soon.Feedback will be used for internal and external evaluation.

Clearing process

Kick-off meeting


12/14

From jury members:

Procedures generally perceived as positive & workable

Process of weighting scores specifically mentioned as good idea

- Some indicators could be merged to simplify the formDefinitions of indicators not always clear

Need to clarify which score is neutral

Some first feedback I


13/14

Some first feedback II

From researchers: Sufficient time available for proposal

Funding agencies perceived as helpful

Information was clear and accessible

Use of known national routines was advantage

Good idea to complement large EU FPs with such small, specific calls

More EU/Member State financing should go to such smaller cooperative programmes likethe ERA-NET

Most consortia grew out of existing networks

Timing: winter start would have been better additional growing season

Affirmation sheet needs to be simplified

Funding available per country unclear made planning of proposal more difficult

Tough timeframe for clearing/contract negotiations (over summer)

Different administrative rules in partner countries complicate mattersTopic did not offer clear possibilities for industry partners, although this was desired.Should be stated clearly what kind of industry partners were meant.


14/14


Rohstoffe e.V.

Thank youThank you

for your attentionfor your attention

Karen GrnerFachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V.EU affairsTel: +49-3843-6930-162

Fax: +49-3843-6930-102E-mail: [email protected]: www.fnr.de

Call report:

available soonon www.eranetbioenergy.net

6. görner fnr short rotation coppice

Documents