Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 The Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission Katowice, 21 February 2013 Mario Iamarino Anna Zietek DG Research and Innovation Directorate."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 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

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

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

4 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

5 1952 1973 1981 1986 The ECSC Flag

6 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

7 10 Years of RFCS Luxembourg, September 2012

8 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 €

9 50-60 million € / year Steel: 72.8% Coal: 27.2 % Annual Budget


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

12 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. The RFCS Legal Basis Highly industry-oriented….

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

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

15 Eligible Actions: Research projects (60% funding) to cover investigative or experimental work with the aim of acquiring further knowledge Pilot projects (50% funding) 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 ~ 15 €/y

16 Project Synopses Collection of about 550 projects (2003 – 2013), Completed projects have direct link to final report.

17 Project Synopses

18 Success Stories

19 Success Stories

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

21 Why ? The exercise is foreseen every 7 years in the Legal Basis (Last one in 2006  due date is 2013) 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 How ?

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

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

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

25 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

26 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

27 50 m€/y invested by RFCS 700 m€/y potential benefits

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

29 Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD Framework programmes 1984 – 2020 (FP1… FP7, Horizon 2020) RFCS 2003 - ?

30 Research and Innovation Sources for EU funding at DG RTD Framework programmes € 11 b/y (FP1… FP7, Horizon 2020) RFCS € 52 m/y In 2013:

31 FP7 budget breakdown Complementary to RFCS

32 Transition from FP7 to… Total: € 960 bn (European summit 7-8/2/2013) Budget Horizon 2020: € 80 bn (not confirmed)

33 RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCSFPs Does not rely on contributions from member states Relies on contributions from member states Bottom - upTop - down Continuous programmeDiscontinuous programme

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

35 RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCSFPs Actual costs (average hourly rates still accepted) Indirect costs: 35% of staff costs 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

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

37 RFCS versus Framework Programmes RFCSFPs StableDynamic

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

39 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.

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

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

42 Submission of proposals A1 – General information on the proposal A2 – Beneficiaries profiles A3 – Budget B1 – Proposal administrative overview B2 – Proposal description (B3 – Resubmitted proposals) B4 – Technical Annex

43 B4 - TECHNICAL ANNEX Contractual document Part 1: Project Objectives Part 2: Workpackage Description Part 3: Bar Chart



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

47 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 Evaluations 47

48 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

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

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

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

52 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

53 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

54 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 CO2 capture 54

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

56 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.

57 Proposals received 57

58 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.

59 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

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


62 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)

63 Technical Groups Coal TGC1 – Coal mining operation, mine infrastructure and management, unconventional use of coal TGC2 – Coal preparation, conversion and upgrading TGC3 – Coal combustion, clean and efficient coal technologies, CO2 capture

64 Technical Groups Steel TGS1 – Ore agglomeration and ironmaking TGS2 – Steelmaking process TGS3 – Casting TGS4 – Hot and cold rolling processes TGS5 – Finishing and coating

65 Technical Groups Steel TGS6 – Physical metallurgy and design of new generic steel grades TGS7 – Steel products and applications for automobiles, packaging and home appliances TGS8 – Steel products and applications for building, construction and industry TGS9 – Factory-wide control, social and environmental issues

66 First AnnualMid-TermAnnualDraft Final Cover pageXXXX Distribution listXXXX Table of ContentsXXXX Abstract (max 250 words)XXXX Project Overview TableXXXX Budget informationXX Bar chart (actual vs planned)XXXX List of DeliverablesXXXX State of the ArtX Progress of work and problems encounteredXXX Final summary (max 10 pages)X Scientific and technical description of work (task by task) XX Dissemination activities, patentsXXXX List of achronims, abbreviations, referencesXXXX Signed Technical AnnexXXX Guidelines for Technical Reporting

67 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”).

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

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

70 Guidelines for Financial reporting 2. FINAL COST STATAMENT  Delivered max. 90 days from the beginning of the calendar year following the closing date of the project  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.

71 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 the only existing cost incurred after the end of the project and considered as an eligible cost 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.

72 Main Changes

73 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.

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

75 Common mistakes and examples of good practice Annual working hours and the hourly rate for each staff member 2.400,0024,00 4.900,00

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

77 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 Inv. no WK/2011/3320, purchase of: shroff casette, 4 pcs Inv. no 57/1/11, purchase of: electronic component of the probe, 50 pcs Inv. no 102/11/ECEL, purchase of: small-size acelometer detectors type 1,16 pcs Inv. no 108/07/2011, purchase of: probe covers 1-component 50 pcs 45.568,55 16.000,00 3.580,00 2.859,00 6.880,00 74.887,55

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

79 79  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 B5 for subcontractor  A signed copy is to be sent once the subcontract is actually signed Subcontracts

80 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.

81 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 B5).

82 82 RFCS website is hosted by Cordis: 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… Web Links / RFCS Info

83 Thank you for your attention 83

Download ppt "1 The Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission Katowice, 21 February 2013 Mario Iamarino Anna Zietek DG Research and Innovation Directorate."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google