This Template Can Be Downloaded from the Internet at Ftp

TEMPLATE FOR FP6 PROJECT REVIEWS

This template can be downloaded from the Internet at
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6/docs/template_review_report_1105.doc

Individual report

Consolidated report

Thematic Priority/Activity

Instrument type

Project no and acronym

Project full title

Project start date

Project duration

Project coordinator name and organisation

Period covered by report from/to

Date of (review) meeting

Name(s) of reviewer(s)

Name of reviewer drafting the report

Sustainable Energy
Integrated Project
502687 NEEDS
New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability
1 September 2004
48 months
Dr Andrea Ricci, ISIS Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems
13-24 months
9-10 November 2006
Drda-Kuehn, Casey, Lucas
Nigel Lucas

Introduction

This template provides the structure for the review report that needs to be prepared after the project review. Alternatively, the template can be found in Word format at http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/project-management.htm and be completed off-line.

In completing Sections 2-8 of the report, independent reviewers should keep in mind that, in case they feel that they do not have the competence or the information to answer a question, they do not need to tick any of the boxes ‘Yes’, ‘Partially’, ‘No’ for that question, but they must complete the ‘Comments’ box.

If several reviewers are involved, it is preferable that a consolidated report be prepared by one reviewer chosen as ‘rapporteur’.

The reporting requirements for FP6 projects are described in detail in the “Guidance notes on Project reporting in FP6” (downloadable from http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/project-management.htm and http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/find-doc-management.htm#reporting )

Questions to be answered by the reviewer(s)

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

a. Executive summary

Please follow the order of the individual sections of this report

Comments:

The project is important in establishing an integrated approach in dealing with energy externalities at a national, European and in some cases global level. It is working to a well-structured work plan and has plentiful resources. The work plan for the coming 18 months is sound and the consortium is well managed – technically and administratively.
It has progressed well since the last annual review. The final tests will be whether the project succeeds in melding together the multiple techniques to produce results that are not otherwise available and that are novel and useful. It must also engage policy makers, persuade researchers in the field that it is the reference for all future work and establish itself as the global leader in the field.
Such impact is by no means guaranteed, but is within reach. The key to success lies in integration and in dissemination/communication. Integration is foreseen as an important component of the project and there is a research stream dedicated to it. Technically the integration is proceeding well; templates have been developed to link the models and these appear to work. There is also a good spirit of common and constructive endeavour among the project teams. The main risk is that the teams will not be able to develop a common vision of the final product and will therefore not be able or be prepared to make the compromises within their own work that will be necessary for the overall success. This should be an important concern over the next year. A draft of the final tool; the so-called “structured protocol; should be available by then as a guide to all concerned.
The dissemination and communication has improved since last year. There is now some good engagement with policy makers and a better sense of purpose in Stream 3b. The website functions well as a project management tool, but needs to be improved for wider dissemination. The extensive dissemination potential of this project is not adequately reflected in the work plan, yet. Dissemination activities as well as the creation of a distinctive exploitation plan need a more strategic approach and additional efforts but can still catch up if seriously treated.
The African partners have not contributed adequately because of lacking financial transfers. However, negative effects are not expected yet by the responsible RS coordinator.
The project has the potential to become a “good to excellent” project. To achieve this is needs to demonstrate useful and novel results, to develop a clear and practical vision of the final output and to improve communication and dissemination.

Good to excellent project (The project has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period and has even exceeded expectations)

Acceptable project (The project has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with relatively minor deviations)

Unsatisfactory project (The project has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule)

b. Recommendations

Coherent vision: It is recommended that the project develop within the next year through a transparent and cooperative process a shared vision of the final tool and the acceptance of the need to contribute effectively to that shared vision. This should be available at the latest by the next review period.
Global leadership: The project should develop a vision statement along the lines that it “will bring to the attention of the Global community of politicians, policy makers, researchers and interested individuals, the importance of and the important advances and findings in energy externalities research. In fulfilling this objective, it will provide Global leadership in this research and analysis and will welcome and support the participation in these activities of researchers from across the world.” Within this context, the web site should transform itself into a welcoming host, which recognises the needs of not only researchers and high-level users, but also the rights of individuals, schools, parents, and even children to have access to the results of research. This website should employ the most advanced technologies and design approaches to deliver its content. Indeed, it will also become a global leader in bringing research results to society, and will support this imperative as it has already been expressed in the FP7 Energy Work Programme.
Dissemination: The project needs substantial improving of the dissemination as well as the preparation of the exploitation of the achieved results as well as the future results. There needs to be a more strategic approach than at present; professional support might be desirable. Further suggestions are provided later in the review.
Handling of late results for dissemination activities: A detailed strategic dissemination plan which describes interdependencies between Research Streams and offers ideas and an operational concept for generating dissemination activities before the end of the project is necessary.
Financial transfer to African partners: The coordinator should investigate mechanisms within the partnership to ensure that adequate funds are assigned to the African partners in order to get the work going. This is within the legal rights of the coordinator but should be discussed with the other partners for reasons of a trustworthy partnership.
A longer term strategic plan: It would useful, despite being a 4 year project, to have and to work within a longer term strategic framework which foresees (however tentatively) raising additional funding and future research needs with the expectation of continuing this undoubtedly important research. In this context, the researchers (and particularly their home research institutions) should consider an immediate, explicit commitment to continuing this group-research effort and in the medium term stabilise the financial and administrative base of this important area of research. The formation of a European Technology Partnership might be a useful step in this process.

2. OBJECTIVES

a. Have the objectives for the period been achieved?

Yes

Partially

Comments:

With some exceptions, the objectives have been achieved.
Integration seems on track – the technical issues of making the models work together seem to have been solved. The management of the integration process is effective. The route to producing a structured protocol to further users is less clear and needs thought.
The LCA work is important to capture externalities of capital-intensive technologies; it is proceeding without evident problems. Innovative aspects are centralization of data and generation of matrices for future years.
The improved methodology and measurement of externalities is also on track. The atmospheric modeling has advanced through hemispheric models. Source-receptor matrices have been developed in 44 areas. Exposure-response functions have been extended to radiation and heavy metals. The project is examining the impact of PM10 components. There are innovations on indicators and valuation of bio-diversity and advance in the valuation of mortality. For soil and water the project has identified through a screening process the most important impacts through soil and water of energy cycles. The key now is to focus and ensure that a useful tool is created within two years – must avoid the temptations of the search for perfection.
Work on externalities of transport is proceeding well. There are nice studies on oil and gas flows. Will make own assessments of hydrogen penetration.
The Extension of geographical coverage has been delayed apparently because MEDA partners cannot work with the long payment delays of the Commission.
National models have been developed, tested, calibrated and training initiated. Pan-European model developed based on the national models. Scenario-definition is close to completion. Objectives of year 2 have been met. Main problems arose from inadequacy of published data sources; substantial effort to refine data was needed.
The Energy Technology Roadmap and Stakeholder Perspectives Stream is moving more slowly than other streams. It is an approach to decision-making that complements the optimisation of economic costs.
Transferability and generalisation is an important practical issue. The stream has only just begun and there is little to report; there are no evident difficulties at this stage. It is a concern that there are no deliverables up to Month 42. This should be revised. Apparently, some technical papers are foreseen before then.
The Plan for Dissemination and Use of Knowledge is greatly improved in terms of engagement with the policy community, but more is needed. It needs more comprehensive dissemination of technical results especially peer-reviewed; it needs to aim at making the output of NEEDS the basis for the bulk of future externality work in the EU. Engagement with policy community is one part of that, but need also to think about the physical deliverable to users. What will it be? How will they be influenced?

b. Are the overall objectives (i) still relevant and (ii) still achievable within the time and resources available to the project?

(i)

Yes

Partially

(ii)

Yes

Partially

Comments:

The results still seem achievable within the available time and resources, but it will need a degree of focus. Researchers need to focus on the need to have a working, integrated system up and running and delivering useful results. They should not get bogged down for the search for perfection where it is not possible.

c. Do you recommend changes in objectives in order to keep up with the current state-of-the-art?

Yes

Partially

Comments:

The teams are aware of the state-of-the art and incorporating such advances as are required.
The dimension of the dissemination of the project results should be more strongly considered in every single research stream. An overall consideration by the coordinator is difficult as the research is of high complexity and needs overview knowledge in many relevant energy fields. However, this could be managed by a close look at the end of every single work package at dissemination matters.

3. WORKPLAN AND RESOURCES

a. Has the project as a whole been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I to the contract)?

Yes

Partially

Comments:

The project is broadly on track, well managed and likely to deliver. There needs to be even more focus on delivery and dissemination even to the prejudice of interesting scientific alleys.
Nature and timing of interfaces between streams has been difficult to achieve, but is largely managed. There are specific problems with matching technical progress locally to progress globally, but this has been achieved by defining exogenous scenarios for technical progress.

b. Has each work package (WP) been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I to the contract)?

Yes

Partially

Comments:

RS 1a + 1 b are acceptable in the implementation, the reports available, and the RS show good and interesting results.
RS 1c The research stream is in good progress and the work packages are sufficiently reported. The delay of year 1 has been caught up.
RS 1d: The RS has started in 03/2006; the 3 WPs are in progress. The African partners have not contributed adequately because of lacking financial transfers. However, negative effects are not expected yet by the RS coordinator.
RS 2a: The objectives of the RS have been met.
RS 2b: Research Stream 2b appears to be on a different schedule from other Streams; there are reasons for this, but the incorporation of this work in the final product requires thought. Only 1/3 of work has been done so far, most of work will be done in year 4; social scientists and NGOs are included. The following points may be considered:
- Given the awareness of methodological problems in this RS, the very small database is not really representative on a European level, although this is methodologically acceptable.
- The connection with 3b is not given yet and should be developed strategically.
- The results of this RS are foreseen for month 48. This will be too late for being integrated in other results and for dissemination activities. This should be rethought in close cooperation with the responsibilities in dissemination.
- Indicators will be available until month 39.
The collected stakeholder database is concentrated on one topic only: Electricity. This limits the outcome. The RS should consider how representation can be secured for other fields.
RS 3a: No great problems; in progress.
S Integration: Communication and political integration: a strategic plan is missing for communication, a structural protocol is needed.
S 3b Dissemination: The recommendations of the first annual review have been considered. This must be appreciated. More can and should be achieved and suggestions are given later in this review.

c. Have planned milestones and deliverables been achieved for the reporting period?