The Research Fund for Coal and Steel of

  • Slides: 83
Download presentation
The Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission Katowice, 21 February

The Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission Katowice, 21 February 2013 Mario Iamarino Anna Zietek DG Research and Innovation Directorate G - Industrial Technologies 1

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3.

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3. Proposal submission and evaluation steps 4. Technical Reporting 5. Financial Reporting

European Coal and Steel Community Treaty of Paris - 1951 . . . expired

European Coal and Steel Community Treaty of Paris - 1951 . . . expired in 2002

European Coal and Steel Community Main scope - coordination of the national coal and

European Coal and Steel Community Main scope - coordination of the national coal and steel sectors - boosting economical progress through cooperation - ensuring stability - supporting technological innovation by co-financing research projects Main financial resources: levies on coal and steel products paid by the companies non-public money

The ECSC Flag 1952 1973 1981 1986

The ECSC Flag 1952 1973 1981 1986

Launching of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel Treaty of Nice - 2001

Launching of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel Treaty of Nice - 2001 The residual assets of the ECSC are transferred to the European Commission

10 Years of RFCS Luxembourg, September 2012

10 Years of RFCS Luxembourg, September 2012

ECSC Assets Current investment portfolio: 1 673 million € Interests generated annually : 3

ECSC Assets Current investment portfolio: 1 673 million € Interests generated annually : 3 % Annual budget for the programme: 50 – 60 million € Revenues made available so far: 563 million €

Annual Budget 50 -60 million € / year Coal: 27. 2 % Steel: 72.

Annual Budget 50 -60 million € / year Coal: 27. 2 % Steel: 72. 8%

Annual Budget 62 60 € 56 Mio 58 54 52 50 48 46 2001

Annual Budget 62 60 € 56 Mio 58 54 52 50 48 46 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

The Commission RFCS Programme management COSCO CAG/SAG Programme Committee Representatives of the Member States

The Commission RFCS Programme management COSCO CAG/SAG Programme Committee Representatives of the Member States 1) Coal / Steel Advisory Group Recommended representatives 2) Technical Groups 12 Technical Groups Senior Experts for project monitoring & review 1) 2) 2) Appointed by the Member States Appointed by the EC

The RFCS Legal Basis COUNCIL DECISION 2008/376/EC on the adoption of the Research Programme

The RFCS Legal Basis COUNCIL DECISION 2008/376/EC on the adoption of the Research Programme of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel and on the multiannual technical guidelines for this programme. Highly industry-oriented….

Coal Research Objectives Articles: 4. 5. 6. 7. Improving the competitive position of Community

Coal Research Objectives Articles: 4. 5. 6. 7. Improving the competitive position of Community coal Health and safety in mines Efficient protection of the environment and improvement of the use of coal as a clean energy source Management of external dependence on energy supply

Steel Research Objectives Articles: 8. New and improved steelmaking & finishing techniques 9. RTD

Steel Research Objectives Articles: 8. New and improved steelmaking & finishing techniques 9. RTD and the utilisation of steel 10. Conservation of resources and improvement of working conditions

Eligible Actions: • Research projects (60% funding) to cover investigative or experimental work with

Eligible Actions: • Research projects (60% funding) to cover investigative or experimental work with the aim of acquiring further knowledge • Pilot projects (50% funding) ~ 15 €/y development of an installation with a view to examining the potential for putting theoretical or laboratory results into practice • Demonstration projects (50% funding) construction or operation of an industrial-scale installation for the industrial and/or commercial exploitation of the technology at minimum risk • Accompanying measures (60% funding, up to 100% in special cases) promotion of the use of knowledge gained in projects of the Research Programme

Project Synopses http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html Collection of about 550 projects (2003 –

Project Synopses http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html Collection of about 550 projects (2003 – 2013), Completed projects have direct link to final report.

Project Synopses

Project Synopses

Success Stories http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html

Success Stories http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html

Success Stories http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html

Success Stories http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/home_en. html

Benefits from the RFCS An insight into the Monitoring and Assessment Exercise

Benefits from the RFCS An insight into the Monitoring and Assessment Exercise

Why ? • The exercise is foreseen every 7 years in the Legal Basis

Why ? • The exercise is foreseen every 7 years in the Legal Basis (Last one in 2006 due date is 2013) How ? • An expert committee has been appointed and has formulated a working method • Draft results are now available for both the monitoring and assessment exercises • Final version to be published at the end of 2013

Assessment of 198 projects completed over the period 2003 - 2020 23% of projects

Assessment of 198 projects completed over the period 2003 - 2020 23% of projects assessed in-depth

RFCS projects rated as very successful High degree of achievement of the individual objectives

RFCS projects rated as very successful High degree of achievement of the individual objectives of the projects

Outcomes of the projects Practically and industrially validated solutions, ready for dissemination

Outcomes of the projects Practically and industrially validated solutions, ready for dissemination

In-depth assessment Examples of benefits provided by the projects • Quantified Benefits : Financial

In-depth assessment Examples of benefits provided by the projects • Quantified Benefits : Financial Returns estimated at the project level for the beneficiaries • Operational cost reduction • Productivity improvement • Energy, raw materials savings • New market shares • Qualitative Benefits • New knowledge • Environmental benefit • Health, safety, working conditions

Examples of financial returns (Coal sector) • Coal Mining • New mechanisation and automation

Examples of financial returns (Coal sector) • Coal Mining • New mechanisation and automation of longwall mining equipment Productivity increase with a fully automated shearer loader system 1. 5 M€/y/longwall; potential 45 M€/y (EU) Cost reduction: decrease of labour cost, increase of running time 0. 1 M€/y/longwall; potential 3 M€/y (EU) sales of the automated shearer loader in booming markets • Clean Coal technologies • Cost saving in power plants Increase of plant availability by 1 % 1 M€/y Cost saving by avoiding wrong investment of cleaning system 10 M€ • Coal Conversion • Improving coke battery life through integrated monitoring Capital cost net reduction of 5 % through life extension potential 0. 75 €/t/y

50 m€/y invested by RFCS 700 m€/y potential benefits

50 m€/y invested by RFCS 700 m€/y potential benefits

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3.

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3. Proposal submission and evaluation steps 4. Technical Reporting 5. Financial Reporting

Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD • Framework programmes •

Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD • Framework programmes • (FP 1… FP 7, Horizon 2020) 1984 – 2020 • RFCS 2003 - ?

Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD In 2013: • Framework

Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD In 2013: • Framework programmes • (FP 1… FP 7, Horizon 2020) € 11 b/y • RFCS € 52 m/y

FP 7 budget breakdown Complementary to RFCS

FP 7 budget breakdown Complementary to RFCS

Transition from FP 7 to… Total: € 960 bn (European summit 7 -8/2/2013) Budget

Transition from FP 7 to… Total: € 960 bn (European summit 7 -8/2/2013) Budget Horizon 2020: € 80 bn (not confirmed)

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS FPs Does not rely on contributions from member states

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS FPs Does not rely on contributions from member states Relies on contributions from member states Bottom - up Top - down Continuous programme Discontinuous programme

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Open call (proposal submission limited to June. September) FPs

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Open call (proposal submission limited to June. September) FPs Calls are announced by the EC Funding rate: 60% Research 50 -75% Research 50% Demonstration 60% Accompanying measures 100% Other activities

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Actual costs Indirect costs: 35% of staff costs FPs

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Actual costs Indirect costs: 35% of staff costs FPs Actual costs (average hourly rates still accepted) Indirect costs: 40% of total costs for public bodies and SMEs (60% up to 2010) 20% other companies (moving towards actual indirect costs) Actual indirect costs are welcome

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Fully managed by the European Commission FPs Partially externalised

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS Fully managed by the European Commission FPs Partially externalised (executive agencies)

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS FPs Stable Dynamic

RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCS FPs Stable Dynamic

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3.

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3. Proposal submission and evaluation 4. Technical Reporting 5. Financial Reporting

WHO can participate? Any legal entity established in any of the Member States (public

WHO can participate? Any legal entity established in any of the Member States (public or private organizations). New EU member states (non-ECSC countries) have the some rights to participate as old member states. Partners from Candidate or Third Countries can participate, but cannot receive funding. From 1 July 2013: Croatia joins EU and can receive RFCS funding.

No threshold nor limit on budget, consortium size, project duration. However, typical projects have:

No threshold nor limit on budget, consortium size, project duration. However, typical projects have: • • Number of partners: 4 - 8 Total budget: 2 - 4 million € RFCS funding: 1 -2 million € Duration: 36 – 42 months

How to submit a proposal • Since 2011, RFCS proposals are to be submitted

How to submit a proposal • Since 2011, RFCS proposals are to be submitted electronically through the SEP platform • Go to RFCS webpage on Cordis: http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal -steel-rtd/ 41

Submission of proposals • A 1 – General information on the proposal • A

Submission of proposals • A 1 – General information on the proposal • A 2 – Beneficiaries profiles • A 3 – Budget • • B 1 – Proposal administrative overview B 2 – Proposal description (B 3 – Resubmitted proposals) B 4 – Technical Annex

B 4 - TECHNICAL ANNEX Contractual document • Part 1: Project Objectives • Part

B 4 - TECHNICAL ANNEX Contractual document • Part 1: Project Objectives • Part 2: Workpackage Description • Part 3: Bar Chart

Proposal Selection Process 1. Proposal submission (Sept 2013) 2. eligibility check submitted proposals 3.

Proposal Selection Process 1. Proposal submission (Sept 2013) 2. eligibility check submitted proposals 3. evaluations eligible proposals 4. budget cut-off ranking list 5. SAG, COSCO Commission Decision negotiation unsufficient budget ineligible proposals not recommended for funding Project Start (Jul 2014)

Evaluations • On site evaluation (Brussels) • 1 week for coal • 4 weeks

Evaluations • On site evaluation (Brussels) • 1 week for coal • 4 weeks for steel • Around 25 to 30 Experts per week + 1 observer • Requirement for experts selection • • • Expertise & Competences No conflict of interest Ca. 50% renewal Max. 3 consecutive participations Geographical origins Gender balance 47

Do you want to become an expert? Expert Registration • On RFCS website, follow

Do you want to become an expert? Expert Registration • On RFCS website, follow the link to Participant Portal • For both FP and RFCS • Simple process 48

Selection Criteria (Research, Pilot & Demonstration projects) 1. Scientific and technical approach 0 -

Selection Criteria (Research, Pilot & Demonstration projects) 1. Scientific and technical approach 0 - 5 pts* 2. Innovative content 0 - 5 pts* 3. Consistency of resources and quality of partnership 0 - 5 pts 4. Industrial interest and scientific/technical prospects 0 - 5 pts 5. Added value for the European Union 0 - 5 pts * Required threshold of 3 points

Selection Criteria (Accompanying Measures) 1. Contribution to RFCS Objectives 0 - 5 pts 2.

Selection Criteria (Accompanying Measures) 1. Contribution to RFCS Objectives 0 - 5 pts 2. Scientific, technical and socio-economic prospects 0 - 5 pts 3. Added value for the European Union 4. Budget and resources Required threshold : 15 total points 0 - 5 pts

Annual Research Priorities If a proposal meets an annual priority, it will be awarded

Annual Research Priorities If a proposal meets an annual priority, it will be awarded 1 extra point • • Different from Project Objectives Not mandatory For Research, Pilot and Demonstration only Available electronically and listed also in Infopack Vol. 1

Coal Priorities 2013 (1) 1. 1. Management of environmental risks during or after mine

Coal Priorities 2013 (1) 1. 1. Management of environmental risks during or after mine closure 2. 2. Increasing the efficiency of mine production and development by utilising Information and Communication Technologies for improved process optimisation 3. 3. Protection of mine infrastructure in the case of major accident hazards like rock bursts, gas explosion, fire, etc. 52

Coal Priorities 2013 (2) • 4. Improving the efficiency and economics of underground coal

Coal Priorities 2013 (2) • 4. Improving the efficiency and economics of underground coal gasification • 5. Improvement in coal carbonisation through the use of alternative raw materials in coking blends • 6. Upgrading of coal-derived liquids 53

Coal Priorities 2013 (3) • 7. Technological improvements targeting enhanced efficiency and environmental performance

Coal Priorities 2013 (3) • 7. Technological improvements targeting enhanced efficiency and environmental performance of coal fired power plants • 8. The development of flexible CCS plants in terms of fuel mix and dynamic behaviour • 9. Pilot projects validation of emerging and innovating technologies leading to efficiency improvements and CO 2 capture 54

Annual Research Priorities Good proposals and bad proposals do not need the priority bonus!

Annual Research Priorities Good proposals and bad proposals do not need the priority bonus! Proposals with intermediate marks may benefit from the priority bonus. Cut-off budget bad proposals (not funded) good proposals (funded anyway) Final mark

Step 2: Consensus meeting When the 3 individual evaluations are ready, these are merged

Step 2: Consensus meeting When the 3 individual evaluations are ready, these are merged together into one single text (Draft Consensus Report). Unanimity is required concerning the fact that a proposals passes (or does not pass) the eliminating threshold on criteria 1 and 2.

Proposals received 57

Proposals received 57

Outcomes of the 2012 evaluation exercise Not yet available! A written communication will be

Outcomes of the 2012 evaluation exercise Not yet available! A written communication will be sent to the Project Coordinators between the end of 2012 and the first months of 2013.

Final remarks & advice • • Strong competition High quality level of proposals Long

Final remarks & advice • • Strong competition High quality level of proposals Long process: start early with experienced partners ! Descriptions should be short & concise, but don't expect the evaluators to dig out necessary information • Explain improvements in case of resubmission • Make use of the RFCS projects synopses • Enrol as an expert (Evaluator) 59

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3.

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3. Proposal submission and evaluation steps 4. Technical Reporting 5. Financial Reporting

Monitoring of the projects is done by: 1 Scientific Project Officer 1 Set of

Monitoring of the projects is done by: 1 Scientific Project Officer 1 Set of financial officers (allocated by country) 1 Set of external experts (Technical Group)

Technical Groups Coal TGC 1 – Coal mining operation, mine infrastructure and management, unconventional

Technical Groups Coal TGC 1 – Coal mining operation, mine infrastructure and management, unconventional use of coal TGC 2 – Coal preparation, conversion and upgrading TGC 3 – Coal combustion, clean and efficient coal technologies, CO 2 capture

Technical Groups Steel TGS 1 – Ore agglomeration and ironmaking TGS 2 – Steelmaking

Technical Groups Steel TGS 1 – Ore agglomeration and ironmaking TGS 2 – Steelmaking process TGS 3 – Casting TGS 4 – Hot and cold rolling processes TGS 5 – Finishing and coating

Technical Groups Steel TGS 6 – Physical metallurgy and design of new generic steel

Technical Groups Steel TGS 6 – Physical metallurgy and design of new generic steel grades TGS 7 – Steel products and applications for automobiles, packaging and home appliances TGS 8 – Steel products and applications for building, construction and industry TGS 9 – Factory-wide control, social and environmental issues

Guidelines for Technical Reporting First Annual Mid-Term Annual Draft Final Cover page X X

Guidelines for Technical Reporting First Annual Mid-Term Annual Draft Final Cover page X X Distribution list X X Table of Contents X X Abstract (max 250 words) X X Project Overview Table X X Budget information X X Bar chart (actual vs planned) X X List of Deliverables X X State of the Art X Progress of work and problems encountered X X X Final summary (max 10 pages) X Scientific and technical description of work (task by task) X X Dissemination activities, patents X X List of achronims, abbreviations, references X X Signed Technical Annex X X X

Deliverables • • To facilitate the work of the TG reviewers, it is recommended

Deliverables • • To facilitate the work of the TG reviewers, it is recommended to append deliverables to the periodic reports (upload deliverables on CIRCABC is also an option). • For deliverables which are not in the form of a written report (e. g. , a new process, a new product, a web site), a short description (plus some pictures) should be provided. • Whenever possible, avoid distributed (or do-it-yourself) deliverables (“Deliverable consists of Fig on pag X plus Table on pag Y”).

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3.

Structure of Presentation 1. RFCS: history, activities, benefits 2. RFCS vs Framework Programmes 3. Proposal submission and evaluation steps 4. Technical Reporting 5. Financial Reporting

Guidelines for Financial reporting 2 Cost Statements: 1. MID-TERM COST STATEMENT q Delivered max.

Guidelines for Financial reporting 2 Cost Statements: 1. MID-TERM COST STATEMENT q Delivered max. 90 days from the end of the first reporting period q Triggers the 2 nd pre-financing (40%, Annex III) Ø if <70% of 1 st pre-financing used, payment reduced by unused amount

Guidelines for Financial reporting 2. FINAL COST STATAMENT q Delivered max. 90 days from

Guidelines for Financial reporting 2. FINAL COST STATAMENT q Delivered max. 90 days from the beginning of the calendar year following the closing date of the project q Triggers the final payment (only after approval of publishable final report) ! Art. II. 4. b In case that a final financial statement has not been received until the 31/12 of the calendar year following the closing date of the project, the Commission is entitled to proceed to the closure of the project account on the basis of the assumption that the beneficiary(ies) concerned do not claim any costs for the entire project.

Guidelines for Financial reporting CERTIFICATE ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Audit certificate prepared and certified by

Guidelines for Financial reporting CERTIFICATE ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Audit certificate prepared and certified by an external auditor compulsory with the Final Cost Statement covers the costs of the entire project subcontract costs, if exist, should be certified confirmation that on no conflict of interest exists the Commission is entitled to reject some of the costs accepted by the Auditor ü the only existing cost incurred after the end of the project and considered as an eligible cost ü an additional financial and/or technical Audit can be requested by the Commission at any time of the duration of the project and up to 5 years after completion of the project. ü ü ü

Main Changes

Main Changes

Staff costs • Staff costs must be consistent with objectives and duration of corresponding

Staff costs • Staff costs must be consistent with objectives and duration of corresponding tasks. • Art. II. 3. f • Notify the Commission if staff costs are >20% then planned at the grant agreement preparation stage • To assess the eligibility of additional staff costs, the Commission shall seek the advice of the Technical Group. • In absence of any notification before the closing date of the project, the staff cost amount agreed during the grant agreement negotiations will be retained and used as an upper ceiling.

Common mistakes and examples of good practice After 2009 the depreciation period is always

Common mistakes and examples of good practice After 2009 the depreciation period is always 60 months! Invoices for equipment always requested!

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Annual working hours and the hourly rate

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Annual working hours and the hourly rate for each staff member 24, 00 2. 400, 00 4. 900, 00

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Details for each item needed!

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Details for each item needed!

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Please provide always the copy of the

Common mistakes and examples of good practice Please provide always the copy of the invoice above 5. 000, 00 EURO Inv. no 128/10/ECEL, , purchase of: electronic detectors PCB Piezotronics, 40 pcs 16. 000, 00 Inv. no WK/2011/3320, purchase of: shroff casette, 4 pcs 3. 580, 00 Inv. no 57/1/11, purchase of: electronic component of the probe, 50 pcs 2. 859, 00 Inv. no 102/11/ECEL, purchase of: small-size acelometer detectors type 1, 16 pcs 6. 880, 00 Inv. no 108/07/2011, purchase of: probe covers 1 -component 50 pcs 45. 568, 55 74. 887, 55

Guidelines for Financial reporting: on time payment ü Prepare the cost statements on time

Guidelines for Financial reporting: on time payment ü Prepare the cost statements on time ü Send dated and signed original versions (if final report, Audit certificate must be attached) ü Check carefully the reporting dates, project acronym, grant agreement number, contact person email address ü All items should be clearly identified, please avoid lumped sums ü Attach all invoices for single items > 5000€. ü Attach invoices for claimed equipment ü Revenues genereted by the project and other sources contribution must be declared; ü Provide staff costs per single calendar year and, if required by the Commission, per single task.

Subcontracts For research assistance only Max 40% of beneficiary’s budget (unless affiliates) Should be

Subcontracts For research assistance only Max 40% of beneficiary’s budget (unless affiliates) Should be foreseen at GA preparation Must be approved by EC prior to signing • Copy of draft subcontract • Forms B 5 for subcontractor q A signed copy is to be sent once the subcontract is actually signed q q 79

Amendments • Changes to the Grant Agreements may be requested by any of the

Amendments • Changes to the Grant Agreements may be requested by any of the parties. It shall be signed by the Legal Representative of the concerned party, and submitted in written to the Commission by the Coordinator. If accepted, a modified version of the Grant Agreement is issued and sent to the consortium for signature. • If >1 modification requested, the request is to be considered as a package and shall be approved/rejected as a whole. • • Examples of possible amendments: - Termination and inclusion of a beneficiary; - Suspension / termination / extension of the project; - Changes in the technical objectives of the project (limited changes are accepted); - Transfer of activities and budget from one beneficiary to another; • • Please refer to the Guidelines for amendments on the RFCS website.

Changes of cost positions • Changes to the different costs positions in the budget

Changes of cost positions • Changes to the different costs positions in the budget do not require an amendment (budget breakdown is not a contractual document). • However, the beneficiary concerned should contact the Project Officer and ask for the acceptance of the new breakdown of costs. • If this is not done, the Project Officer may reject the modified costs during the analysis of the cost statements. • If the new budget is accepted, new budget forms should be provided (Form B 5).

Web Links / RFCS Info • RFCS website is hosted by Cordis: http: //cordis.

Web Links / RFCS Info • RFCS website is hosted by Cordis: http: //cordis. europa. eu/coal-steel-rtd/ Here you will find: • Information Package volume I (proposal submission) • Information Package volume II (preparation of Grant Agreement) • Amendment guide • Guidelines for Technical and Financial Reporting • Project Synopses and Success Stories and much more… 82

Thank you for your attention 83

Thank you for your attention 83