The expert recommendations on the initial structure of the RIA and SIR together with the current status of hydropower technology are summarized in the HYDROPOWER EUROPE reports available for the public. The final reports (Report on the first wider stakeholder consultation process; Experts' recommendations on the initial structure of RIA & TR (SIR) and the current status of hydropower technology) are available here: https://hydropower-europe.eu/publications/deliverables/ The objective of the first consultation process was to collect detailed inputs from the hydropower community on the scope of the two main HPE documents: the Research and Innovation Agenda (RIA) and the Strategic Industry Roadmap (SIR). By using material arising from the first expert workshop organised in March 2019, a first portfolio of topics which identify the main challenges regarding the hydropower sector has been developed. To achieve this goal, three regional workshops were carried out from August to October 2019 in three different climatic regions of Europe to address their specific climatic, environmental and social issues and to promote appropriate innovations for solving these challenges. In parallel, a stakeholder online consultation was launched from August to November 2019 in order to allow both widening of scope and refinement of specific topic issues. What is the purpose of the Consultation Expert Panel? The Consultation Expert Panel (CEP) consists of 34 representatives of the whole hydropower community with a wide range of technical, economic, environmental, legal and social knowledge. The focus of the CEP is, on the one hand, to evaluate the structure and content of the Research and Innovation Agenda (RIA) and Strategic Industry Roadmap (SIR) regarding their application in a consulting process with all stakeholders and on the other hand to analyse and advise on prioritising the comprehensive information based on the overall consultation processes. CEP recommendations based on the 1st wider stakeholder consultation process It was noted that for the R&I topics, in general, the budgets and timeframes indicated by the stakeholders show a very widespread. The possibility that the associated R&I activities which the individual stakeholders had in mind were very different was seen as one reason for this issue. However, generally, the respective budget and time frames looked quite realistic.