Final Report Summary - ROKWOOD (European regions fostering innovation for sustainable production and efficient use of woody biomass)
Executive Summary:
Biomass is increasingly being seen as an important energy source for Europe. In 2009, the European Commission (EC) set the binding target for renewable energy. 20 % share of renewable energy in the EU overall energy mix by 2020 shall be reached. In order to achieve this, a possible strategy suggested by the EC is to triple the use of biomass energy compared with 1997, being the greatest bioenergy potential for growth (up to 50 %) in wood chips and agro biomass.
For this reason, biomass production and trade have proven to be a flourishing sector that requires adapted solutions to meet the current international demand. Compared to the conventional energy sector, the structure of the European biomass sector is characterised by SMEs. The industry of renewable energy currently employs over 1.5 million people. Latest studies predict that, by 2020, nearly 3 million more jobs could be created, with a great potential for energy farmers, equipment manufacturers, installers, technicians, builders and engineers.
Thus, the ROKWOOD project supported the transnational cooperation between six European research-driven clusters in order to improve research and technological development, market uptake and to increase investments in wooden biomass production and utilisation schemes at regional level. The six participating regional clusters were coordinated in order to develop a Joint Action Plan (JAP) at European level to drive economic development through research and technological development activities in the selected topics of sustainable production and efficient use of wooden biomass.
Each cluster was represented in the ROKWOOD project by three partners respecting the triple-helix concept (business entity, research entity and local/regional authority). Apart from these partners, the European Biomass Industry Association (EUBIA) joint the consortium in order to assure a broad dissemination of project results to a broad range of stakeholders (e.g. industry, biomass producer, research organisations).
The six project clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face all complementary challenges in terms of the production of wooden biomass from Short Rotation Plantations (SRPs). ROKWOOD enforced the coordination between the countries through a collective JAP. Furthermore, the integration of regional SMEs and research institutions into regional policy development through the cooperation with local and regional authorities helped to foster innovative research in the area of wooden biomass. The regions selected in ROKWOOD have similar problems but they achieved different degrees of success in the creation of wooden biomass related clusters with sufficient economic weight. By networking them, ROKWOOD promoted the exchange of best practices in the support of innovation and involvement of private companies (in particular SMEs), thus improving economic growth in this sector. Special efforts were made to promote socio-economic convergence through R&D and innovation in rural areas suffering a conversion process. Knowledge transfer within and beyond the clusters can provide sufficient solutions to these problems. Through the integration between research bodies, business entities and regional authorities the desired benefits for the different regional economies were intended to be attained.
Project Context and Objectives:
ROKWOOD project started on December 1st, 2012, and finished on November 30th, 2015, with a total duration of 36 months. In sum, the project aimed to link European players from research, business and the public sector and to develop a JAP. Partners from six European regions joined forces and developed strategies to enhance the innovative capabilities of the resource efficiency, improving cooperation at regional and European level, integrating research-driven clusters across Europe to promote regional economic development and worldwide competitiveness of European companies.
Main objectives
- Find out the main obstacles and barriers hindering the development of local biomass regions in Europe.
- Generate at least 10 innovative cooperative project ideas tackling the technical barriers (e.g. harvesting, drying technologies).
- Identify financial resources for the development of innovative products and services in this sector.
- Reach as many stakeholders as possible by effective dissemination activities.
S&T objectives:
- Work Package 1: analysis of regional clusters state of play.
- Identify gaps of research (selection and development of technologies) for promoting environmental industries' competitiveness, focusing on technologies (planting, harvesting) for markets with high growth potential (task 1.1).
- Reinforce and better design the regional policies, analysing current RTD policy issues supporting wooden biomass from SRCs and maintaining at the same time the dynamics and the potentiality of this sector (task 1.2).
- Identify barriers and success factors of regional research-driven clusters through a SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play (task 1.3).
- Identify related European and international initiatives and projects around wooden biomass from SRCs to offer and request know-how and knowledge (task 1.4).
- Identify research fields for promoting a resource-efficient Europe; develop a cross-regional JAP, setting priorities for research in the field of environmental-innovation (wooden biomass production and sustainable use) (WP 2).
- Initiate project ideas for improved harvesting technologies and systems (for over aged/large stems and small field plantations) (WP 2 and 4).
- Improve the technical and non-technical framework conditions for the logistic chain for transportation and storage of lignocellulosic biomass in SRPs in Europe (WP 2 and 4).
- Facilitate more efficient planting techniques (planting should be possible with common planting machinery) (WP 2 and 4).
- Develop project ideas for new or improved biomass drying technology for wood chips (minimisation of losses on drying) (WP 2 and 4).
- Improve breeding to enhance the existing problems like less frost resistance and capacity of resistance to snow and to achieve a longer life span of the rootstock and a higher increase in yield (WP 2 and 4).
- Disseminate the existing knowledge, experience and know-how on parent tree nurseries (WP 2 and 4).
- Develop strategies to protect SRC from damages caused by game animals, especially on small plantations (WP 2 and 4).
- Provide solutions to the regulation problem of under storey vegetation (WP 2 and 4).
- Disseminate the existing knowledge, experience and know-how on accretion improvement (WP 2 and 4).
- Provide access to valuable information on irrigation in early stage (WP 2 and 4).
- Support strategic collaboration of innovative environmental industry clusters in Europe by developing new cluster initiatives in other EU regions (task 3.1) and developing a internationalisation strategy (task 3.2).
- Exchange of best practices and complementary staff exchanges between actors in different regional research driven clusters, making particular efforts to obtain solutions to address competitiveness through innovation in rural areas (task 4.4).
- Support for SMEs in research and technology transfer; strengthen the expertise and use of SMEs, the largest group in environmental clusters, in R&D benefits; improve international connections with similar companies and research institutes through the promotion of cross-regional cooperation in order to exchange and boost specialist skills and knowledge (WP 5).
- Develop a web-based information-platform to improve communication, effectiveness and performance of the tasks, to find individual logistic solutions and to ensure a long-term information flow during and after the project duration (task 5.1).
- Transfer the practical oriented information derived from the research projects to end users, especially landowners, power plant engineers and municipal energy suppliers, initiating or strengthening this way national plans and increasing the number of initiatives regarding the use of SRCs (task 5.3).
- Further dissemination of the results of related projects, reaching new targeted groups in third countries (task 5.6).
Innovation objectives:
- Create business opportunities between SMEs, SME Associations and RTDs, enhanced via public authorities support through adequate policy formulations.
- Open up new markets for renewable energy sources (especially energy wood) and ensure a free market development in the selected bioenergy regions by having access to the knowledge about adapted logistic concepts for optimised mobilisation of energy wood.
- Provide access to valuable information on using wood chips as a source of energy to related stakeholders and decision makers to motivate them and to transfer knowledge about the potential of optimised mobilisation of energy wood and sustainable local value chains.
- Support and enable the broad establishment of SRP based biomass regions in Europe by lower the barriers for technical and non-technical innovations in the SRPs sector and improving the framework conditions for the logistic chain of lignocellulosic biomass in SRPs in Europe.
In order to achieve these objectives, the work was organised in 6 Work Packages (WPs) within the ROKWOOD project. Out of 6 WPs, there were 4 “Coordination” WPs (WP1 – WP4), 1 “Other activities” WP (WP 5) and 1 “Management” WP:
- Work Package 1: analysis of regional clusters state of play.
- Work Package 2: definition of Joint Action Plan and Financial Plan.
- Work Package 3: international cooperation strategy.
- Work Package 4: measures towards the implementation of the Joint Action Plan.
- Work Package 5: dissemination and exploitation.
- Work Package 6: project management and coordination.
The work started with WP1, focused on the characterisation of the regional clusters state of play. Different exercises were proposed, like identification of regions and key actors, choice of PESTLE factors, compilation of current research within and outside the consortium, elaboration of a directory of RTD offer and demand, identification of obstacles and barriers hindering the production and utilisation of wooden biomass as biofuel, analysis of existing regional state of play and cluster policy, elaboration of a SWOT analysis and identification of European and international initiatives and projects.
The main aim of WP2 was the definition of a Joint Action Plan (JAP) and a Financial Plan (FP) for transregional cluster consolidation. The JAP was intended to express the partners’ strategy to drive economic development through research and technological development activities, identifying the partners involved, objectives, activities, responsibilities and schedule for transnational cooperation. Once ready, the consortium considered that a reduced public version should be prepared to use it as dissemination material and also to bring together possible future collaborators for the initiatives described within it. It was prepared in a printable dossier format, respecting the ROKWOOD self image already created. It was uploaded to the website, being therefore accessible to everyone.
The FP describes in detail the possibilities identified to finance the implementation of the activities included in the JAP. It gathers information related to local, regional, national, European and international funding opportunities, including suitable private investments or public funding schemes. The experience and advice of different ranges of stakeholders in the biomass sector (regional authorities, experts from research centres and universities, owners of private and public companies, etc.) was highly considered. The FP has made use of the results of the previous work focusing on the research topics chosen within the consortium and checking the state-of-the-art at EU level, the sub-topic areas at regional level considering the objectives and chosen scopes and the R&D activities defined at regional level and the resources needed for their implementation. Thus, a catalogue of suitable funding sources at different spatial levels (regional, national, European) and for different areas (R&D, dissemination, implementation, etc.) was elaborated, and then the activities of the JAP were linked to the funding sources of the catalogue.
The aim of the Policy Briefs (WP2) was to put together a series of recommendations for policy makers, public authorities and governmental agencies to support the development, production and use of SRPs derived woodfuel in each of the partner countries. Each cluster developed one policy brief (six in total). Due to the regional focus of the ROKWOOD project, the briefs are inevitably shaped by the characteristics of each cluster region and are therefore primarily focused on influencing regional policy (although this does vary to some extent, based on the structure of governance in each country). Ultimately, it was hoped that they directly influenced all levels of formal policymaking and the development of action plans and guidance within each country. Some of the recommendations clearly link to the measures identified within the JAP. They were also formatted as happened with the JAP.
WP3 was devoted to international cooperation strategies. Internationalisation is a key success factor in worldwide competition, and it was therefore an important component of ROKWOOD innovation policy. It was consequently needed to identify priority markets for cluster members to enhance export opportunities for European business entities in the wooden biomass production sector, as well as clusters from third countries active in the resource-efficient production and use of wooden biomass and of cooperation possibilities in RTD and innovation support services with these clusters. Afterwards, it was needed to create international cooperation strategies for developing collaborative research and trading opportunities involving SRPs. In order for the industry to develop and respond to the current and future requirements for large volumes of sustainably produced biomass, there needs to be much greater co-ordination and co-operation between SMEs and researchers in different countries, both in the EU and beyond. WP3 enabled the consortium partners to identify and correspond with other SMEs and researchers work.
WP4 was devoted to the development of measures towards the implementation of the JAP. First, a catalogue of at least 15 project ideas in total for three subthemes (harvesting the SRPs and processing the biomass, end use of the SRPs products and multifunctionality (added value) of the SRPs) was elaborated. Then, mutual learning and exchanging best practices were encouraged. The six clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face common challenges, and it is intended that sharing knowledge and experience in this way will help to support innovation in this sector and address the barriers identified under previous tasks. Therefore, the clusters identified several case studies in their region, and the 40 best case studies were selected for the projection of a Best Practices Booklet. Furthermore, site visits alongside the project meetings were facilitated to create opportunities for the sharing of knowledge amongst ROKWOOD partners and for networking, both within and outside of the consortium. Exchange programmes were also developed in order to facilitate the exchange of expertise. The exchange of staff ensures that best practice is spread and further developed to the highest standard throughout Europe in order to guarantee that the regions can benefit from each other’s expertise. The staff exchange program aimed to strengthen research partnerships and networking activities between actors in different regional research driven clusters.
Regional workshops have been also organised. They were designed to support the efficient uptake of biomass regions in Europe by raising awareness of its potential as a multifunctional environmental crop, attracting stakeholders from regions where the local wooden biomass potential is still to be uncovered.
Regarding dissemination, the project website (http://www.rokwood.eu) was established and it has been continuously updated. The website is the main access point to the materials made available by the project, and it was intended to use the synergistic effects of connecting itself to existing resources managed by the ROKWOOD partnership and social media such as Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia and Facebook, ensuring that ROKWOOD gets visibility online to a broad audience. 10,009 sessions in the website have been held since May 1st, 2013 until November 30th, 2015 by 6,9126 users with 35,617 page visits, being 61.16% new sessions, and the average visit duration is 00:03:32. The top 3 countries regarding the website use are Spain, with 1,889 sessions, UK with 1,604 sessions and Germany with 1,590 sessions. It is also remarkable the fact that the website has registered 344 sessions from Brazil and 222 from the US.
The website has an important section called Marketplace, devoted to connect relevant actors of the sector that grew together with the website development throughout the project lifetime. With this aim, relevant institutions and companies were addressed and invited to register. 287 relevant actors have been registered up to now, being remarkable the fact that 86 come from Poland, 45 from Spain and other 45 from the UK.
With regards to social media, ROKWOOD has a Facebook page that up to now has 92 Likes, a Twitter profile with 233 followers and 656 tweets and retweets, a group in LinkedIn with 23 members and 17 open debates and a YouTube channel with 864 visits.
Another important dissemination tool is the project video. 6 videos have been produced in 6 different languages (English, German, Spanish, Polish, Swedish and French), and versions oriented to different audiences (public, farmers and policymakers) were also prepared in all languages mentioned. These videos are shorter versions of the “official” English video, with different interviews and no subtitles, but locution in each of the languages chosen. Therefore, 18 videos have been created in total, and it is on the partners’ hands which one should be used in each occasion.
The partners were very active in attending events, disseminating the project results and creating joint publications. In addition, the ROKWOOD partners produced and published a final project publication: "ROKWOOD – Resource efficient production and utilisation of wooden biomass from SRPs – European Best Practice and Key Findings".
Last but not least, the partners organised the project Final Conference. It was decided to split the final conference into two different events: a workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E), held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015, and an evening reception for policy makers following the Biomass and Energy Crops V in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015.
Eventually, project management within WP6 has been carried out in parallel to the rest of activities, ensuring the smooth running of the project and the correct organisation, communication and co-operation between the beneficiaries and with the European Commission. Four official project meetings have been held during this period: the Kick-off Meeting in Málaga, Spain, the 1st Progress Meeting in Lund, Sweden, the 2nd Progress Meeting in Bristol, England, the Mid-term Meeting in Goslar, Germany, the 3rd Progress Meeting in Mullingar, Ireland, the 4th Progress Meeting in Warsaw, Poland and the Final Meeting in Brussels, Belgium.
Project Results:
Biomass production and trade have proven to be a flourishing sector that requires adapted solutions to meet the current international demand. Thus, the ROKWOOD project supported the transnational cooperation between six European research-driven clusters from the biomass field in order to improve research and technological development, market uptake and to increase investments in wooden biomass production and utilisation schemes at regional level. The six participating regional clusters were coordinated in order to find out the main obstacles and barriers hindering the development of local biomass regions in Europe, to build up a Joint Action Plan (JAP) at European level to drive economic development through research and technological development activities in the selected topics of sustainable production and efficient use of wooden biomass, to identify financial resources for the development of innovative products and services in this sector, to generate at least 10 innovative cooperative project ideas tackling the technical barriers (e.g. harvesting, drying technologies) and to reach as many stakeholders as possible by effective dissemination activities, among other aims.
As a result of all work carried out, the outputs / foregrounds of ROKWOOD project could be summarised as follows:
- Analysis of regional clusters state of play – inventory of research infrastructure and facilities, PESTLE analysis, directory of RTD offer and demand, SWOT analysis.
- Catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas (Joint Action Plan – JAP), including an edited printable version.
- Policy Briefs, including edited printable versions.
- Financial Plan (FP) to secure the execution of activities planned in the JAP.
- International cooperation strategy, including a description of international priority markets.
- Best Practices Booklet, compiling the 40 most valuable regional best practices identified by the partners, including an edited printable version.
- Site visits in each of the concerned region, facilitating the exchange of knowledge.
- Staff exchanges, encouraging the best practices spreading.
- Training workshops, supporting the widespreading of ROKWOOD findings among regional actors in each of the clusters.
- Final project publication, including an edited printable version, that summarises all project activities and findings.
- Final Conference, the perfect forum to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD project.
The work carried out within the different WPs could be summarised as follows:
WORK PACKAGE 1: ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL CLUSTERS STATE OF PLAY. WP leader: SP.
The main purpose of WP1 was to get a complete and cross-sectional diagnosis of the state of play of the six participating research-driven clusters and of additional regional capabilities around which research could be carried out.
Task 1.1: Characterisation of regional clusters state of play. Task leader: SP.
All project partners performed a detailed analysis of the state of play of their respective research-driven clusters, that contained findings on relevant regional public and private RTD actors for the creation of a transnational database, business entities active in the production of wooden biomass, financial actors relevant for R&D and innovation, regional research infrastructures and facilities for conducting research in the sector of wooden biomass production, etc. All clusters made a PESTLE analysis (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental factors) in depth for their respective regions in the field of wooden biomass production and utilisation. Furthermore, a selection scheme for the identification of key actors was defined to establish the methodology for the selection of key stakeholders in the targeted regions. Finally, all cluster regions did an inventory showing the available resources for research activities in their respective cluster.
All this information was used for the preparation of deliverables D1.1 “inventory of research infrastructure and facilities”, D1.2 “PESTLE analysis”, and D1.3 “selection scheme for identification of key actors”, by SP.
Task 1.2: Identification of relevant RTD issues in participating regions. Task leader: TTZ.
This task was intended to identify relevant research and technological development (RTD) issues in the area of wooden biomass production and utilisation as resource-efficient biofuel in regional existing policies, plans, activities and RTD actors. For the identification of joint research topics and to support SMEs in pan-European research and technology transfer, a directory of RTD offer and demand was developed. For this purpose all clusters analysed the state of play in the SRP sector in their region. The aspects to be investigated for the later evaluation of common research topics were: technological state of the art in wooden biomass production and use as biofuel, existing agricultural technologies, supply chain arrangements in European biomass regions, potentials for improvement and research needs in the addressed area, technology and know-how offers for other regions, technology and know-how requests from other regions and best practices (regional programmes, research activities, etc.) to be exchanged amongst the partners. The results revealed large differences in the state of play in the SRP sectors of the different clusters.
In addition, information on relevant both running and finished projects concerning research and technological development in the SRP sectors within the six clusters was compiled. Considered aspects comprised the financing, the duration, a short description of the project and the participating research institutions.
A questionnaire concerning the research needs of the SMEs in the SRP sector by identifying obstacles and barriers hindering the production and utilisation of wooden biomass as biofuel was also created in two versions: one for the biomass producers and one for the biomass consumers, respectively focused on their own peculiarities. This double-faced approach provided a deeper knowledge of the needs and barriers hindering the growth of the sector. Aspects investigated by the questionnaire concerned the availability of machinery, planting material and biomass supply chains, climatic conditions, energy market structures, the legal framework and others.
Existing regional and national RTD policies and plans, their evolution and their impact were investigated by the participating local authorities in order to reinforce and better design the regional policies supporting the resource-efficient use of wooden biomass as biofuel, maintaining at the same time the dynamics and potentiality of this sector.
The results of all this work were used for the preparation of deliverables D1.4 “Directory of RTD offer and demand” by CSE, D1.5 “Current research within and outside the consortium” by TTZ, D1.6 “Obstacles and barriers for wooden biomass production” by EUBIA and D1.7 “Analysis of existing regional state of play and cluster policy” by RPAA.
Task 1.3: SWOT analysis of each region. Task leader: CSE.
The objective of this task was to identify impediments and factors of success of regional research-driven clusters through a SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play and, especially, of the PESTLE analysis developed within task 1.1. This analysis also would help to find out the barriers for growing SRCs and using the wooden biomass, as well as other barriers hindering the sector improvement. The matrixes obtained from the results of all clusters would be the basis for establishing a common SWOT presenting common strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from an economic, innovation and RTD perspective.
The results of this work were used for the preparation of deliverable D1.8 “SWOT analysis” by CSE.
Task 1.4: Analysis of links to other European and international initiatives and projects. Task leader: EUBIA.
The aim of this task was setting up a list with reference to possible links to existing European Technology platforms, Joint technology initiatives and other European projects in order to secure the best possible connection with other EU initiatives. All project partners were asked to compile all information they had about existing European and international initiatives and projects around the production and utilisation of wooden biomass. In addition, a comprehensive search for further initiatives not known within the consortium was conducted as well through daily check of main European bulletins, European projects activities, web research, information given by other local authors, etc. The main output of this task was the identification of related European and international initiatives in order to exclude duplication in research efforts and gain synergy effects. 8 main categories of projects were identified: supply chain development, information platform, SRPs implementation and performances assessment, market development, SRPs promotion though awareness campaigns and policy actions, technology development, enhancing sustainability and SRPs guidelines and standards, R&D coordination and future planning.
This information was used for the preparation of deliverable D1.9 “European and international initiatives and projects around wooden biomass production and utilisation” by EUBIA.
WORK PACKAGE 2: DEFINITION OF A JOINT ACTION PLAN AND A FINANCIAL PLAN. WP leader: BIOZ.
The main aim of WP2 was the definition of a Joint Action Plan (JAP) and a Financial Plan (FP) to secure the execution of activities planned in the JAP for transregional cluster consolidation. This JAP was intended to express the partners’ strategy to drive economic development through research and technological development activities, identifying the partners involved, objectives, activities, responsibilities and schedule for transnational cooperation. Another important task was the elaboration of policy briefs for the future implementation of strategies.
Task 2.1: definition of regional and transnational research topics. Task leader: C4E.
According to the findings of the analyses carried out within WP1, this task intended to define regional and transnational research topics to be gathered in a cross-regional research topics agenda. This agenda sets priorities for research in the field of resource efficient wooden biomass production and utilisation as biofuel including development perspectives, strategic goals and concrete development activities. The main aim is to improve the competitiveness of the sector in Europe and enhance the collaboration between the regional clusters.
The resulting 6 transnational research groups were focused on the following research topics: resource mapping, adaptation & agronomy, quality & standards, economic benefits to society, multifunctional uses, production economics, technological advancements and refining supply chains.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.10 “catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas”, by BIOZ.
Task 2.2: development of joint activities. Task leader: BIOZ.
The main aim of this task was the preparation of the Joint Action Plan (JAP), which is indeed one of the main outputs of the ROKWOOD project. The JAP is intended to express the strategy for the participating clusters to drive economic development through joint R&D activities in the production and utilisation of wooden biomass.
Each cluster summarised their obstacles, interests, offers and needs according to their relevance order in the region, that were afterwards listed by importance for their region and transformed into the ideal situation towards they would like the woody biomass sector to be driven. These were named as “ideal situations” or “Topics” in the task exercises. These JAP topics were defined by “Sub-topics”, also called “Future Joint Actions”, which represented the priority measures to take into consideration. These actions were the basis for defining the “R&D Activities” or “Steps to implementation”. Each cluster was asked to elaborate concrete future joint activities which could drive the economic development in the production and utilisation of woody biomass in their areas, being always based on the regional problems of each cluster. All clusters discussed about their proposed topics or ideal situations, prioritised them, chose those to be finally worked on the JAP and created six working groups to explore and work on each of the topics chosen. These topics were the following: development of pilot or demonstration projects and development of regional SRP clusters, develop lobbying at an EU task group level, develop regional species guidelines & transnational agronomy development, cultivation / logistics / end-use knowledge transference, multi-function / added value research and develop education and training programs for sector stakeholders.
It was decided that a reduced public version should be prepared. In addition to the protection of the confidential information, this public version of the JAP could work as a powerful dissemination tool that could potentially help to the JAP to be implemented, bringing together possible future collaborators for the initiatives described, although this was not initially planned in the Annex I. It was prepared in a printable dossier format, respecting the ROKWOOD self image in order to make it attractive enough for the stakeholders (Figures 1-6).
The output of this task was compiled in D2.10 “catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas” by BIOZ.
Task 2.3: elaboration of policy briefs for the future implementation of strategies. Task leader: CSE.
The aim of this task was to put together a series of recommendations for policy makers, public authorities and governmental agencies to support the development, production and use of SRPs derived woodfuel in each of the partner countries. These recommendations take the form of a ‘policy brief’ and draw on the robust evidence base gathered from the outputs of the previous ROKWOOD WPs and tasks, and constitute another of the key output of the ROKWOOD project.
Each cluster developed one policy brief. Due to the regional focus of the ROKWOOD project, the briefs are inevitably shaped by the characteristics of each cluster region and are therefore primarily focused on influencing regional policy (although this does vary to some extent, based on the structure of governance in each country). Ultimately, it is hoped that they will directly influence all levels of formal policymaking and the development of action plans and guidance within each country. Some of the recommendations clearly link to the measures identified within the JAP.
The policy briefs were developed by defining the issues and solutions, deciding on policy brief options and defining the recommendations for the policy. To define the issues and solutions, a review of the SWOT and PESTLE analyses conducted under previous tasks was done. The SWOT analysis in particular was heavily used both to identify issues and to find potential solutions, with most of the issues being derived from weaknesses and threats in the SWOT analysis. Solutions were sought by looking for relationships, for example a strength that could overcome a threat or an opportunity that could negate a weakness. The resulting recommendations were then tested against SMART characteristics (i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound). Before finalising the policy options some external factors were also considered, including: what policies are already in development that might impact the SRP sector? If we are to successfully steer the policy framework, are there any deadlines that need to be met? Are there any key consultations that should be responded to? What is the potential for support for SRPs under the next round of the Rural Development Programme? Are there any prospects of other public sector funding for SRPs? In the event of there being several policy options that addressed the same issue, an attempt was made to combine possible solutions into one coherent set of policy options.
Once the policy recommendations were narrowed down and decided upon, each cluster chose a number of recommendations to elaborate on more fully in the final policy briefs.
The result of this work was the Policy Briefs. They were also formatted to make them more attractive for readers and then distribute them among relevant stakeholders (Figures 7-15).
It was agreed that an opportunity should also be provided for relevant stakeholders to comment on the draft policy briefs. These should ideally be both from within and outside each cluster region as the briefs were supposed to be relevant to all levels of policymaking.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.11 “policy briefs and financial plan” by IFAPA.
Task 2.4: development of Financial Plan. Task leader: IFAPA.
This task was devoted to the development of a Financial Plan (FP), in which the possibilities to finance the implementation of the JAP were identified and described in detail. In order to achieve this, all project partners gathered information related to local, regional, national, European and international funding opportunities including private investments or public funding schemes suitable for the activities planned in the JAP. The regional authorities taking part in ROKWOOD were expected to involve the management authorities related to the Structural Funds in their concerned regions. The experience and advice of different ranges of stakeholders in the biomass sector (regional authorities, experts from research centres and universities, owners of private and public companies, etc.) was highly considered. The FP made use of the results of the previous tasks focusing on the research topics chosen within the consortium and checking the state-of-the-art at EU level, the sub-topic areas at regional level considering the objectives and chosen scopes and the R&D activities defined at regional level and the resources needed for their implementation.
Three key chronological steps were developed to obtain the required data:
- Identification of suitable funding sources at different levels (regional, national, European) and different areas (R&D, dissemination, implementation, etc.) to create a catalogue of funding sources opportunities. As a result, the partners provided 20 regional funding sources and 40 national funding sources. Regarding the EU level, diverse calls of H2020 were identified, being possible that a lot of them could be related to biomass and SRPs, as well as Interreg V, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Life+ and European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF), among others.
- Identification and definition of joint activities in the production and utilisation of woody biomass. The activities to be considered in the FP were obtained from the JAP, the output of task 2.2. The aim of this step was to link the activities identified in the JAP for each of the priority topics to the funding sources and provide additional information to achieve the JAP effective implementation.
- Definition of a mechanism to link the specific activities defined in the step II with the specific activities gathered in step I to secure the execution and the implementation of activities planned in the JAP. Key indicators, data and information needed were defined and structured as follows: funding sources, timetable, estimation of the number of years for the execution of each activity and estimated costs to perform the activity. Each partner had to detail also the impact of each specific activity, the scope identifying also the potential stakeholders that could be affected by the execution of the activity, a risk analysis of the performance of the activity by a synthetic description of the main problems to be tackled, participating partners including institutions that could be involved to cooperate adequately for the fulfilment of each activity and the key indicators to carry out a monitoring process of the performance and results of the activities.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.11 “policy briefs and financial plan” by IFAPA.
WORK PACKAGE 3: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION STRATEGY. WP leader: MODR.
Global markets unleash opportunities for innovative European companies and research institutions: global challenges call for international cooperation in developing scientific solutions. Internationalisation is a key success factor in worldwide competition and is therefore an important component of ROKWOOD innovation policy.
The aim of WP3 was to develop a corresponding strategy for the internationalisation of ROKWOOD in order to act more successfully in the international context. Therefore, suitable international clusters had to be identified and activities for internationalisation to be developed in order to start successful international cooperation in the field of wooden biomass production and utilisation.
Task 3.1: identification of additional European and international clusters. Task leader: MODR.
The purpose of this task was to identify priority markets of woody biomass from SRPs inside and outside the EU and broaden the sector in worldwide competition by supporting strategic collaboration of innovative environmental industry. This was aimed to be achieved by analysing the needs and offers of neighbouring countries and global markets (technologies, intellectual property etc.). The ultimate intention was to enhance the export market for European business entities.
While the main duty in task 1.4 was excluding duplications in research efforts and gaining synergy effects by identifying initiatives as a first step, task 3.1 was focused on the identification of key stakeholders and priority markets to increase the market for export.
Thus, the project partners were asked to gather information on other EU member states and global markets regarding their woody biomass energy sector. The objective was exploring cooperation opportunities in R&D and innovation support services with other clusters active in the resource-efficient production and use of woody biomass and checking the possibilities of export for both the products (wood, seeds, equipment, etc.) and technologies. The countries and global markets explored the following: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, The Netherlands, Belgium, Croatia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Wales, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia (EU member states) and North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle East, India, China, Japan, Korea, Australia / New Zealand and Africa (global markets).
This work brought several main findings: the most important one was that information on SRP is not usually public, so the data obtained by the different partners were difficult to compare. Nevertheless, some conclusions could be extracted. It seems that the market for SRP products and services is actually small at global perspective. The most relevant topic for increasing the relevance of SRPs seems to be the multifunctionality (as in the case of forests). Using as a starting point the fact that they have a positive effect on the environment and water retention and taking into account they can act as a domestic energy source, it would be important that the Common Agricultural Policy in the case of EU and its equivalents in other countries could provide extra economic incentives for farmers to get involved. International scientific cooperation can definitively boost the sector.
The output of this task was compiled in D3.12 “description of international priority markets” by MODR.
Task 3.2: development of international cooperation strategies. Task leader: C4E.
This task dealt with the formation of international cooperation strategies for developing collaborative research and trading opportunities involving SRPs. Despite over 30 years of research, the energy crops sector is still very small and sporadic. In order for the industry to develop and respond to the current and future requirements for large volumes of sustainably produced biomass, there needs to be much greater co-ordination and co-operation between SMEs and researchers in different countries, both in the EU and beyond. Task 3.2 was an integral part of the ROKWOOD project enabling the consortium partners to identify and correspond with other SMEs and researchers with a view to sharing knowledge and experience, exploiting new market opportunities through partnerships and risk sharing, creating links that could lead to future collaborative research and development of projects and working together to achieve a better policy framework.
The outcome of this task and, more generally speaking, of WP3, is a catalogue of measures to be implemented in WP4 and WP5. The relation between this task and the rest of the coordination task of this project could be schematised as shown in Figure 16.
In order to overcome barriers for internationalisation, the development of strategies includes the definition of several aspects and the implementation of different activities:
specific economic and scientific goals connected with internationalisation (internationalising why), listing of potential partners (e.g. network and cluster players, institutions for the promotion of foreign trade), measures designed to reach goals or to address target markets or target groups (internationalising how), time and action plans (internationalising when), calculations for necessary financial and personnel resources and designation of instruments and measures of financial assistance (e.g. instruments and players for the promotion of foreign trade).
- Specific economic and scientific goals connected with internationalisation (internationalising why). Each cluster was tasked with identifying countries or regions of the world that they would like to engage with. Based on their choices, each cluster outlined the specific opportunities that exist and barriers that need to be overcome in order for SMEs and researchers in their own country to exploit these, including export opportunities, import opportunities, the possibility of using labour forces in other regions to reduce production costs and common research needs between the individual clusters and their chosen country or region.
- Listing of potential partners (e.g. network and cluster players, institutions for the promotion of foreign trade). The aim was to identify and make contact with SMEs and researchers with whom the clusters may have similar interests and could benefit from synergies, as well as identifying key personnel and organisations within partner countries that could help cluster members exploit opportunities for European and worldwide collaborative efforts. The outcome of these activities was aimed to be a better understanding of national and international programmes and the right people to contact to develop ideas. The clusters were also asked to familiarise themselves with the H2020 programme and identify their National Contact Points (NCPs). As partners continued to develop projects in WP4, these NCPs were key to prove invaluable sources of advice and information.
- Measures designed to reach goals or to address target markets or target groups (internationalising how). The entire H2020 programme was scrutinised, summarising all the relevant programmes that exist and indicating any opportunities for collaborative projects involving SRPs. In addition, clusters were asked to submit a shortlist of researchers in foreign countries (EU and non-EU countries) and their own country who might benefit from staff exchanges. The researchers that were identified had to be involved in research activities of particular interest to the clusters based on the outputs of previous tasks. The lists produced by each cluster had to provide a good introduction to key SRP researchers in Europe and elsewhere and provide partners with a good databank for identifying potential partners for future projects.
Thus, the cluster partners formed a good understanding of the overseas markets of critical importance, aiming therefore to exploit the hotspots identified. Then, it was aimed to explore the opportunity for SRP companies to be involved as part of planned international trade missions, to identify potential funding pots to take groups of farmers abroad to see SRP supply chains and utilisation technology in different countries and to explore the opportunity for inviting overseas delegations to the last European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EUBC&E) to highlight partnership opportunities with European SRP companies.
Through this, there was a chance for the ROKWOOD project to get noticed, to create links between clusters and encourage transnational trade opportunities. This activity was ultimately carried forward under task 4.5 (training workshops) and task 5.6 (final project conference).
Seven additional tasks were proposed to further improve the results of this task, like enriching the ROKWOOD website database by including information related to machinery availability, SRP variety producers, SRP trial data information or SRP researchers, distributing the JAP among EC Commissioners, NCPs in each country or organisations identified in ICS, and distributing research agenda among research organisations and research councils in the own country or researchers identified in ICS, among others.
The output of this task was compiled in D3.13 “catalogue of measures based on an international cooperation strategy” by C4E.
WORK PACKAGE 4: MEASURES TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT ACTION PLAN. WP leader: CSE.
The main aims of WP4 are to make use of the possibilities of synergies and opportunities for mutual learning and exchange of best practices, leading to the production of a Best Practice Booklet including the 40 best practices regarding production of wooden biomass and utilisation as biofuel in the participating regions, as well as to coordinate and accompany activities for the implementation of the JAP and the international cooperation strategy.
Task 4.1: identification and definition of research related projects. Task leader: EKSPERT.
The aim of this task was to develop a catalogue of at least 15 project ideas in total for three subthemes. Developed project ideas were meant to match with regional, national or European funding. Responsibilities were distributed amongst the partners for initiating those projects.
The three subthemes were defined according to the findings of the previous WPs. In the JAP, SWOT and other deliverables, three themes occur most frequently:
- Harvesting the SRPs and processing the biomass. This subtheme was relevant to several JAP Topics (mostly 1, 3 and 4). Research projects had to mainly target new technologies, machinery and techniques for harvesting processes, including varied conditions (soil, vegetation period, weather, logistic etc.) and drying, chipping, storage and transportation of biomass.
- End use of the SRPs products. This subtheme was relevant to several JAP Topics (mostly 1 and 4). Research projects had to mainly target new technologies, machinery and techniques for end use, including production of pellets, as feedstock for the pulp and paper industry, etc.
- Multifunctionality (added value) of the SRPs. This subtheme was most relevant to JAP Topic 5. Research projects had to mainly answer the question how and where SRP can be or should be used.
Project ideas had to be related to the JAP activities, especially those which will be implemented after the ROKWOOD project ends. Further analysis and project idea development was conducted once the initial project idea descriptions were completed.
The output of this task was be compiled in D4.14 “best practices booklet” by CSE.
Task 4.2: exchange of best practices. Task leader: CSE.
One of the main aims of WP4 was to encourage mutual learning and the exchange of best practices. The focus of this particular task was to pull together examples of best practices within each region for distribution both between project partners and externally. The concept of best practice can be defined as the application of a method or technique that has consistently shown successful results within a specific context. Best practice case studies do not need to show ‘gold standard’ examples, rather they should simply provide information about what is and is not working under certain conditions so that this knowledge can be applied to other projects. The six clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face common challenges, and it was intended that sharing knowledge and experience in this way would help to support innovation in this sector and address the barriers identified under previous tasks.
Each cluster had to identify up to 20 case studies (minimum of 12) that represented good examples of a particular aspect of the SRP supply chain within their region or country. Case studies were selected using a list of categories as a guide.
Clusters first submitted brief descriptions (~100 words) of their proposed case studies in English. As supply chains for SRP are at varying stages of development across the different regions, some cluster partners found difficult to find a suitable number of case study examples from within their region or country. In those cases in which it was difficult to find a suitable number of case study examples from a region or country, then other countries outside those represented by the ROKWOOD consortium could be screened.
Some case studies were initially selected for the policy briefs, that could be also included afterwards within the final 40 to be presented in the Best Practice Booklet.
Each cluster then nominated 5 of their proposed case studies that most effectively demonstrate good / best practice. The idea here was to have 30 good case studies, from which clusters could then select a small number of examples to include in their policy briefs. Clusters then selected their chosen examples (e.g. 5 or 6 in total from their own region/ country or from elsewhere) for inclusion to their policy briefs. Once the final policy brief case study allocations was agreed, each cluster prepared their given set of case studies in English.
Each cluster then wrote up their remaining case studies in English. All the case study write-ups, including those previously prepared for the policy briefs, were then collated and the 40 examples considered to be the most valuable were selected, finalised where necessary and incorporated into a professionally designed booklet for wider dissemination at the final conference and via the project website (Figure 17). The booklet was uploaded in electronic format to the ROKWOOD and 200 printed copies were taken to the Final Conference in Brussels, Belgium, on October 20th, 2015 for distribution to project partners and delegates.
The output of this task was compiled in D4.14 “best practices booklet” by CSE.
Task 4.3: site visits. Task leader: DIT.
Site visits were foreseen in each partner region, and they were considered as networking opportunities with other cluster partners. The aim of this task was to create opportunities for the sharing of knowledge amongst ROKWOOD partners and for networking, both within and outside of the consortium. Examples of best practice within the local supply chains to each of the clusters were meant to be demonstrated during visits to sites, which were organised as part of the ROKWOOD project meetings.
Each regional cluster was expected to organise site visits, taking place right after the project meetings. The host country had to invite industry stakeholders and interested parties from outside of the cluster in order to broaden the networking opportunities available to ROKWOOD partners.
It was expected that the site visits covered key elements of the local supply chain, including (where possible) the harvesting, processing and storing of biomass fuel. The selected locations had to represent examples of best practice within the host country.
Following each of the site visits, participants from the host country had to produce a summary report. It was important to include a detailed description of the region, including key contextual information and issues influencing the biomass sector in the area. This was likely to require information about local or national policy instruments, legal frameworks and market contexts. Supportive figures, data and references had also to be provided.
During the whole project duration, six site visits were arranged along with a project meeting. These where the ones organised during the first reporting period by the Spanish cluster during the Kick-off meeting in Málaga, Spain on January 22nd – 23rd, 2013, by the Swedish cluster during the 1st Progress Meeting in Hörby, Sweden on June, 25th – 27th, 2013, and by the UK cluster during the 2nd Progress Meeting in Bristol, UK on January, 27th – 30th, 2014, as well as the ones organised during the second reporting period by the German cluster during the Mid-term meeting in Goslar, Germany on June, 4th – 6th, 2014, by the Irish cluster during the 3rd Progress Meeting in Mullingar, Ireland on November, 11th – 13th 2014 and by the Polish cluster during the 4th Progress Meeting in Warsaw, Poland on May, 19th – 21st, 2015.
The output of this was compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Task 4.4: staff exchange. Task leader: IFAPA.
This task was devoted to the development of exchange programmes in order to facilitate the exchange of expertise. The exchange of staff ensures that best practice is spread and further developed to the highest standard throughout Europe in order to guarantee that the regions can benefit from each other’s expertise. The staff exchange program, elaborated in detail by the project partners, aimed to strengthen research partnerships and networking activities between actors in different regional research driven clusters.
An exchange programme was developed for different target audiences: students and trainees, researchers, representatives from governmental organisations, etc., trying that the needs of the target countries were best-possibly respected. It was foreseen that at least 2 staff exchanges per region would be executed during the project lifetime. At the end of the project, a report was prepared with the aim to give guidance for further staff exchanges after the project completion in order to guarantee the sustainability of the exchange programme. It is important to highlight the obvious link this task has with the engagement of researchers as part of the international cooperation strategy (task 3.2).
This task covered the exchange of knowledge and expertise both between ROKWOOD participants and amongst relevant external individuals / organisations. The types of exchanges covered under this task could include study tours, job shadowing, back filling staff positions, institutional exchange, accelerated learning exchanges, seasonal exchanges, management exchanges, project based exchanges, workshops, etc. After considering it, it was decided that the two types of staff exchanges that would take place within the project could be:
- Exchange program Type I. Type I exchanges focused on the needs of ROKWOOD partners and it was possible that they could be funded through the ROKWOOD project. All project partners had to consider what expertise and / or experience they wished to gain under this task, and also what their cluster could offer to other ROKWOOD participants. Whilst it was expected that Type I exchanges would primarily focus on sharing knowledge between those already involved in the ROKWOOD project, participants could also request visits to or from other individuals or organisations outside of the consortium. Where ROKWOOD partners needed to travel, the costs connected to Type I exchange visits were aimed to be borne by the person who visited rather than the host. Clusters had to decide individually how their combined ‘travel’ budgets would be allocated regarding the exchanges. Each cluster had to work together to set out the locations that cluster members wanted to visit themselves (i.e. ‘outgoing’ visits), to describe requests for visitors with specific expertise from either within or outside of the consortium (i.e. ‘incoming’ visits) and to set out opportunities from their own region that could be of interest to other ROKWOOD partners (i.e. specific ‘offers’).
- Exchange program Type II. Type II exchanges were externally funded and could take place either during the ROKWOOD project or after its ending. They could involve ROKWOOD participants, external parties or a combination of both. All partners had to provide information on funded exchange programmes of their region, their country and also at EU level (e.g. Marie Curie) to facilitate an exchange of potential students, researchers and representatives from governmental organisations. This activity could not overlap the work already carried out in relation to the identification of funding sources within task 3.2.
It was decided that at least two staff exchanges had to be arranged per cluster, being cost effective and of direct benefit to their members (Figures 18 and 19 for staff exchanges examples).
The outputs of this task were compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Task 4.5: workshops. Task leader: ASAJA.
The participation of appropriate stakeholders was essential for the ROKWOOD project outcomes to be truly relevant and useful. Such stakeholders may include, for example, bioenergy farmers and technology providers, but also policy makers and regional research actors. Activities aimed at promoting the involvement of a wide range of organisations were therefore particularly valuable in terms of evaluating the results of the project. In this sense, the ROKWOOD consortium has been organising regional workshops within this task.
The workshops were designed to support the efficient uptake of biomass regions in Europe by raising awareness of its potential as a multifunctional environmental crop, attracting stakeholders from regions where the local wooden biomass potential is still to be uncovered.
It was agreed to have the equivalent of at least two days of training workshops in each of the six regions where the clusters are located. Clusters could decide whether they wished to hold one long workshop or whether they thought it was more appropriate in their region to split the time allowance into, for example, two 1-day workshops. The target groups were relevant stakeholders in the field of wooden biomass production, especially SMEs, what may include bioenergy farmers, technology providers etc., and also policy makers and regional research actors. Each cluster had to aim for at least 30 attendees in total across all their workshops.
The contents could vary from one region to the other, i.e. they could be tailor made according to the location, audience, etc., a general structure was designed (Figure 20 for training workshops programme example, and Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24 for training workshops held examples).
The outputs of this task were compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Potential Impact:
The need for sustainable sources of locally produced biomass is widely recognised, but despite over 30 years of research and development and 25 years of policy support there are still only around 50,000 hectares of SRPs planted in the EU28. In some of the countries represented by ROKWOOD, such as Sweden and UK, the area of SRPs has fallen rapidly in recent years. The ROKWOOD partners have attempted to understand the reasons for this lack of penetration and propose measures to reverse this trend and kick start the industry.
ROKWOOD has been successful in a number of ways: the showcasing of best practice should help redress some widely held entrenched views on the usability of these biomass fuels. In addition, the project has thrown light on many multifunctional uses of SRPs that should be exploited to benefit local communities.
The lack of any lobbying power has meant that the sector has been in the past the recipient of numerous policy measures that have failed. ROKWOOD has enabled sector participants to produce coherent policy wish lists that have a greater likelihood of influencing policy makers. The project has also facilitated greater networking opportunities amongst SMEs which should help develop partnerships and improve export opportunities. The agenda of research requirements will hopefully lead to funding being channelled into more applied areas that will benefit project practitioners.
Project highlights
The final part of ROKWOOD involved the first steps to implement the Joint Action Plan (JAP). Each cluster has run training workshops, conducted site visits, engaged in staff exchanges, promoted the project through publications and presented at conferences. For many of the consortium partners these facets of the project have provided the highlights.
An important output of ROKWOOD was a book of best practice case studies covering every step in the biomass supply chain, from initial business planning to the distribution and use of the heat and power produced. This authoritative document has been downloaded over 1,000 times, and is almost certainly the first time that such a wealth of information from SRP practitioners has been brought together into one volume. Many of the initiatives described such as the self supply of SRP woodfuel at Gurteen College and district heating at Beuchte Energy Village could and should be replicated elsewhere. Furthermore, the use of SRP as biofilters as demonstrated in Northern Ireland and Sweden exemplify the wider opportunities for multifunctional benefits and efficient land use.
From the outset of the project the co-ordinator stated that there was freedom within the project to adapt the description of work and make the tasks fit the local needs of the clusters. Some of the partners have looked to really add value and go beyond the deliverables in the description of work.
Thus, the partners worked on the production of a European SRP machinery database and a SRP varieties database. They contacted companies across Europe in order to fill in this information. The consortium also decided to translate from Swedish into English the “Willow as Fuel book”, printed copies and distributed among relevant stakeholders.
The consortium has used the project to challenge entrenched views about SRPs and educate policy makers, conservationists, wood fuel suppliers and farmers about the opportunities that SRPs provide. As a result the partners made a big effort in policy tasks and tried to engage with particular groups in their training sessions and site visits. During the English cluster meeting in Bristol an evening seminar was hosted for policy makers and key local influencers. The partners were very proactive speaking at numerous conferences about the ROKWOOD project. As a result of talks at different events, the research community of the concerned regions is well aware of the project and should be ready to work towards future R&D needs.
Project partners have sought to make links with other European funded projects. A strategic relationship was made with the sister project, LogistEC (Logistics for Energy Crops Biomass, www.logistecproject.eu) leading to two ROKWOOD partners speaking at LogistEC events in Brussels.
However, not only these events were relevant to reach important stakeholders of the sector from across Europe. A project conference to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD was planned by the end of the project as an opportunity to disseminate the project’s results to a wide audience of the scientific community. The main objective of the conference was to disseminate ROKWOOD results and to initiate further joint initiatives. In order to maximise the impact, it was decided to organise two events: a ROKWOOD Workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E) held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015 and a special ROKWOOD session and evening reception for policy makers within the Biomass and Energy Crops V Conference in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015.
These events gave us an opportunity to have our voices heard and input into their project outputs – each workshop was attended by EU policy makers and produced a list of recommended actions to help the sector grow.
Outputs from the project
A brief summary of the project outputs can be summarised as follows (Table 1):
- Training courses: N. Germany, 1; Mid / Western Ireland, 4; Mazovia, Poland, 1; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 5; South West England, 5; Total, 17.
- People who have received training: N. Germany, 20; Mid / Western Ireland, 95; Mazovia, Poland, 32; Andalusia, Spain, 260; Skane, Sweden, 53; South West England, 124; Total, 584.
- Site visits: N. Germany, 5; Mid / Western Ireland, 7; Mazovia, Poland, 4; Andalusia, Spain, 2; Skane, Sweden, 27; South West England, 7; Total, 52.
- Staff exchanges: N. Germany, 2; Mid / Western Ireland, 4; Mazovia, Poland, 5; Andalusia, Spain, 2; Skane, Sweden, 3; South West England, 3; Total, 19.
- Articles produced: N. Germany, 4; Mid / Western Ireland, 3; Mazovia, Poland, 2; Andalusia, Spain, 13; Skane, Sweden, 2; South West England, 5; Total, 29.
- Conference attended: N. Germany, 6; Mid / Western Ireland, 6; Mazovia, Poland, 1; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 3; South West England, 12; Total, 19 (19 unique conferences (some clusters attended the same conference).
- Conference presentations: N. Germany, 4; Mid / Western Ireland, 2; Mazovia, Poland, 0; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 4; South West England, 10; Total, 23.
- Organisations signed up to ROKWOOD Marketplace: N. Germany, 38; Mid / Western Ireland, 14; Mazovia, Poland, 85; Andalusia, Spain, 45; Skane, Sweden, 15; South West England, 45; Total, 287 (counting both partners and non-partners).
Main dissemination and exploitation activities
Website
In order to reach as much audience from our concerned target groups as possible, a website was launched under the domain www.rokwood.eu. The website provides information about the project and it is updated continuously with events, press releases and project promotion material. An online marketplace, that intends to show players active in the wooden biomass sector, has been set up on the website as well. Interested institutions can create an account to be shown on the map and edit their market partner profile. This demonstrates the huge dimension (SMEs, large companies, R&Ds, etc.) behind wooden biomass production and utilisation in Europe and strengthen the outside view of the sector (Figure 25).
10,009 sessions in the website have been held since May 1st, 2013 until November 30th, 2015. It has had 6,9126 users with 35,617 page visits being 61.16% new sessions, and the average visit duration is 00:03:32.
The top 3 countries regarding the website use are Spain, with 1,889 sessions, UK with 1,604 sessions and Germany with 1,590 sessions. It is also remarkable the fact that the website has registered 344 sessions from Brazil and 222 from the US (Figure 26).
One of the most important sections is the marketplace. Up to now, 287 (20 ROKWOOD partners + external) organisations / companies have registered in the marketplace. The top 3 countries regarding registered organisations in the marketplace are Poland (85), Spain (45) and UK (45) (Figure 27).
The Marketplace has been growing together with the website development throughout the project lifetime and it will continue even after the project ends. With this aim, relevant institutions and companies have been addressed and invited to register, and the partners will take advantage of any occasion in which it is possible to engage new stakeholders. Links to the ROKWOOD website have been included the partners’ websites as well.
Social Networks
However, the approach to social media should not be centralised, and the whole ROKWOOD network was highly participative by the members’ use of social networks. An open social media strategy reinforces the idea of ROKWOOD as an open, participative network.
The following social media accounts have been created and are maintained and updated by the project partners on a regularly basis (Figures 28, 29, 30 and 31), offering up to November 30th, 2015 the following results and statistics:
- YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ROKWOODEU where all ROKWOOD videos have been uploaded and accounts a total number of visits of 864.
- ROKWOOD fan page on Facebook, with 92 Likes up to November 30th, 2015: https://www.facebook.com/pages/ROKWOOD/581856995166173.
- ROKWOOD profile on Twitter, with 233 Followers and 656 tweets and retweets up to November 30th, 2015: https://twitter.com/ROKWOODEU.
- LinkedIn Group, with 23 members and 17 open debates up to November 30th, 2015: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/ROKWOOD-5085695?gid=5085695&mostPopular=&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1406734061080%2Ctas%3AROKWOOD%2Cidx%3A1-1-1.
These social media accounts are linked to the ROKWOOD website and vice versa. As social media depends on interaction and content publication, the project partners were informed about the creation of the accounts and were invited to actively participate (by linking their own accounts, sharing contents, etc.).
Activity on social media has a great importance for the impact of the project (e.g. reaching the audience for the regional training workshops and the Final Conference), thus these activities were carried out during the whole project lifetime even though the task was scheduled to be developed during months 1-5 and it is intended to go on disseminating the project results using these social Networks.
Leaflets
Two leaflets were conceived to promote work performed during the project. The first one describes the main features of the project, while the second one contained the first project results and acted as a disseminator of the Final Conference (Figures 32, 33, 34 and 35). 2,500 copies were printed and distributed in order to disseminate the project among interested stakeholders in Brussels.
Banners
In order to make a proper presentation of ROKWOOD in any dissemination event or trade fair, a project poster/pop-up banner was designed and it was completed and customised by each cluster. It contains a very short summary of the current situation of wooden biomass in their corresponding region. The size of the banners is 2000 x 850 mm, banner that each cluster can use for any dissemination event (Figures 36 and 37).
Summaries
A short project summary was created. It is as big as a postcard, includes the most relevant information about ROKWOOD and it is conceived as a tool that invites the readers to learn more about the project and to visit the website to get additional information (Figures 38 and 39). 1000 copies were printed and distributed in order to disseminate the project among interested stakeholders in Brussels.
Video
One of the main dissemination items has been the project video. It was agreed to have 6 videos in 6 different languages (English, German, Spanish, Polish, Swedish (only subtitled upon request of the Swedish cluster) and French) instead of one English video subtitled. In addition, different versions oriented to different audiences (public, farmers and policymakers) were also prepared in all languages mentioned. These videos are shorter versions of the “official” English video, with different interviews and no subtitles, but locution in each of the languages chosen. Therefore, 18 videos were created in total, and it is on the partners’ hands which one should be used in each occasion. An online MEGA Repository was created and filled in with the available material. The partners can have access to them whenever they find it necessary, and they are encouraged to use them in workshops, dissemination events, website, Social Networks, etc (Figures 40, 41, 42 and 43).
The DVDs compiling all of them were also prepared (there are six versions of the DVD, one per language) and distributed. It was also uploaded to the website and also to the ROKWOOD channel in YouTube. Some project partners have also uploaded them to their websites, YouTube channels and other Social Networks (Figures 44, 45, 46 and 47).
Joint publications
This task comprised activities dealing with joint publications related to the project findings in different significant magazines and journals. Different series of articles were prepared presenting the project results and potential impacts of production and use of wooden biomass (Figures 48, 49 and 50 for examples). As a result of this task, the joint publications produced were:
- 10 Scientific Papers – Peer Reviewed Journals Submitted (5 International, 5 National), 5 Published to date.
- 7 Conference Papers and Proceedings.
- 24 Other Publications including 1 Book Chapter and range of articles both published and online.
Final project publication
By the end of the project the ROKWOOD partners produced and published a final project publication: "ROKWOOD – Resource efficient production and utilisation of wooden biomass from SRPs – European Best Practice and Key Findings" (Figure 51). This publication is aimed to be used to disseminate best practice in the addressed sector. ROKWOOD produced 200 copies of the report for distribution to stakeholders. An electronic version is also available on www.rokwood.eu for download.
Final Conference
A Final Conference to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD was scheduled by the end of the project. This was an opportunity to disseminate the project’s results to a wide audience of the scientific community. The main objective of the conference was to disseminate ROKWOOD results and to initiate further joint initiatives. In order to maximise the impact, it was decided to organise two events:
- A ROKWOOD Workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E) held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015. The event was composed by 2 sub-sessions:
o Opportunities for SRP application.
o Short rotation methods for sustainable biomass supply.
- A special ROKWOOD session and evening reception for policy makers within the Biomass and Energy Crops V Conference in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015 (Figure 52). The key themes to be treated were:
o Production.
• Agronomy, crop selection, breeding, multifunctionality, land and water use, ecosystem services and impacts.
o Supply Chain and Logistics.
• Storage and drying, processing, development of equipment, transport, densification, temporal and spatial considerations.
o Conversion and Utilisation.
• Feedstock composition and quality, conversion plant performance and emissions, product diversification.
Other dissemination activities:
Other dissemination activities like attendance to dissemination events (conferences, workshops, seminars, etc.), project presentations, articles production, etc. were carried out during the project duration. A summary can be found in section 2.
List of Websites:
Project coordinator:
Mr. Mirko Hänel – Research Director
TTZ Bremerhaven (Water, Energy and Landscape Management).
Address: Fischkai 1, D-27572 Bremerhaven, Germany.
Tel: +49 (0) 471 80 934 501.
Fax: +49 (0) 471 80 934 599.
E-mail: mhaenel@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
Project website address: www.rokwood.eu.
Project consortium:
- TTZ, Christoph Knauer, cknauer@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
- TTZ, Benjamin Küther, bkuether@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
- RPAA, Ralf Winterberg, Ralf.Winterberg@rpg-altmark.de.
- AGRA, Hans-Georg von Engelbrechten, HGvE@agraligna.com.
- MODR, Wojciech Rzewuski, wojciech.rzewuski@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- MODR, Lukasz Cwikla, lukasz.cwikla@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- MODR, Maria Janicka, maria.janicka@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- GZ, Romuald Wozniak, ugzaluski@bip.org.pl.
- GZ, Ilona Szulborska, i.szulborska@zaluski.pl.
- GZ, Lukasz Drzewaszewski, l.drzewaszewski@zaluski.pl.
- EKSPERT, Teresa Janik, t.janik@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- EKSPERT, Jarosław Gopek, jarek.gopek@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- EKSPERT, Magdalena Kiner, m.kiner@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- IFAPA, Víctor Hugo Durán Zuanzo, victorh.duran@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Carlos Parra López, carlos.parra@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Samir Sayadi Gmada, samir.sayadi@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Pablo Almarcha, pablo.almarcha@gmail.com.
- AAPE, Gonzalo Esteban López, areatecnica@apegr.org.
- BIOZ, Pilar Zapata Aranda, pzapata@bioazul.com.
- BIOZ, Ángela Magno Malagón, amagno@bioazul.com.
- BIOZ, Antonia Lorenzo López, alorenzo@bioazul.com.
- ASAJA, Javier Morales Luque, javiermorales-granada@asaja.com.es.
- CSE, Martin Holley, martin.holley@cse.org.uk.
- CSE, Annette Lamley, annette.lamley@cse.org.uk.
- DCC, Pete West, p.west@dorsetcc.gov.uk.
- DCC, Kate Hall, K.M.Hall@dorsetcc.gov.uk.
- C4E, Kevin Lindegaard, kevin@crops4energy.co.uk.
- C4E, Sheena Lindegaard, sheena@crops4energy.co.uk.
- SP, Susanne Paulrud, susanne.paulrud@sp.se.
- SP, Anna Sager, anna.sager@sp.se.
- SEA, Anders Nylander, anders.nylander@kfsk.se.
- SEE, Annika Henriksson, annika.henriksson@salixab.se.
- DIT, Aidan Duffy, aidan.duffy@dit.ie.
- DIT, Patrick Daly, pda@patrickdaly.net.
- WDC, Ian Brannigan, ianbrannigan@wdc.ie.
- WDC, Pauline Leonard, paulineleonard@wdc.ie.
- BL, Briain Smyth, briain@bio-tricity.com.
- BL, Declan Kennedy, declan@bio-tricity.com.
- EUBIA, Valeria Magnolfi, valeria.magnolfi@eubia.org.
- EUBIA, Andrea Salimbeni, andrea.salimbeni@eubia.org.
Biomass is increasingly being seen as an important energy source for Europe. In 2009, the European Commission (EC) set the binding target for renewable energy. 20 % share of renewable energy in the EU overall energy mix by 2020 shall be reached. In order to achieve this, a possible strategy suggested by the EC is to triple the use of biomass energy compared with 1997, being the greatest bioenergy potential for growth (up to 50 %) in wood chips and agro biomass.
For this reason, biomass production and trade have proven to be a flourishing sector that requires adapted solutions to meet the current international demand. Compared to the conventional energy sector, the structure of the European biomass sector is characterised by SMEs. The industry of renewable energy currently employs over 1.5 million people. Latest studies predict that, by 2020, nearly 3 million more jobs could be created, with a great potential for energy farmers, equipment manufacturers, installers, technicians, builders and engineers.
Thus, the ROKWOOD project supported the transnational cooperation between six European research-driven clusters in order to improve research and technological development, market uptake and to increase investments in wooden biomass production and utilisation schemes at regional level. The six participating regional clusters were coordinated in order to develop a Joint Action Plan (JAP) at European level to drive economic development through research and technological development activities in the selected topics of sustainable production and efficient use of wooden biomass.
Each cluster was represented in the ROKWOOD project by three partners respecting the triple-helix concept (business entity, research entity and local/regional authority). Apart from these partners, the European Biomass Industry Association (EUBIA) joint the consortium in order to assure a broad dissemination of project results to a broad range of stakeholders (e.g. industry, biomass producer, research organisations).
The six project clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face all complementary challenges in terms of the production of wooden biomass from Short Rotation Plantations (SRPs). ROKWOOD enforced the coordination between the countries through a collective JAP. Furthermore, the integration of regional SMEs and research institutions into regional policy development through the cooperation with local and regional authorities helped to foster innovative research in the area of wooden biomass. The regions selected in ROKWOOD have similar problems but they achieved different degrees of success in the creation of wooden biomass related clusters with sufficient economic weight. By networking them, ROKWOOD promoted the exchange of best practices in the support of innovation and involvement of private companies (in particular SMEs), thus improving economic growth in this sector. Special efforts were made to promote socio-economic convergence through R&D and innovation in rural areas suffering a conversion process. Knowledge transfer within and beyond the clusters can provide sufficient solutions to these problems. Through the integration between research bodies, business entities and regional authorities the desired benefits for the different regional economies were intended to be attained.
Project Context and Objectives:
ROKWOOD project started on December 1st, 2012, and finished on November 30th, 2015, with a total duration of 36 months. In sum, the project aimed to link European players from research, business and the public sector and to develop a JAP. Partners from six European regions joined forces and developed strategies to enhance the innovative capabilities of the resource efficiency, improving cooperation at regional and European level, integrating research-driven clusters across Europe to promote regional economic development and worldwide competitiveness of European companies.
Main objectives
- Find out the main obstacles and barriers hindering the development of local biomass regions in Europe.
- Generate at least 10 innovative cooperative project ideas tackling the technical barriers (e.g. harvesting, drying technologies).
- Identify financial resources for the development of innovative products and services in this sector.
- Reach as many stakeholders as possible by effective dissemination activities.
S&T objectives:
- Work Package 1: analysis of regional clusters state of play.
- Identify gaps of research (selection and development of technologies) for promoting environmental industries' competitiveness, focusing on technologies (planting, harvesting) for markets with high growth potential (task 1.1).
- Reinforce and better design the regional policies, analysing current RTD policy issues supporting wooden biomass from SRCs and maintaining at the same time the dynamics and the potentiality of this sector (task 1.2).
- Identify barriers and success factors of regional research-driven clusters through a SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play (task 1.3).
- Identify related European and international initiatives and projects around wooden biomass from SRCs to offer and request know-how and knowledge (task 1.4).
- Identify research fields for promoting a resource-efficient Europe; develop a cross-regional JAP, setting priorities for research in the field of environmental-innovation (wooden biomass production and sustainable use) (WP 2).
- Initiate project ideas for improved harvesting technologies and systems (for over aged/large stems and small field plantations) (WP 2 and 4).
- Improve the technical and non-technical framework conditions for the logistic chain for transportation and storage of lignocellulosic biomass in SRPs in Europe (WP 2 and 4).
- Facilitate more efficient planting techniques (planting should be possible with common planting machinery) (WP 2 and 4).
- Develop project ideas for new or improved biomass drying technology for wood chips (minimisation of losses on drying) (WP 2 and 4).
- Improve breeding to enhance the existing problems like less frost resistance and capacity of resistance to snow and to achieve a longer life span of the rootstock and a higher increase in yield (WP 2 and 4).
- Disseminate the existing knowledge, experience and know-how on parent tree nurseries (WP 2 and 4).
- Develop strategies to protect SRC from damages caused by game animals, especially on small plantations (WP 2 and 4).
- Provide solutions to the regulation problem of under storey vegetation (WP 2 and 4).
- Disseminate the existing knowledge, experience and know-how on accretion improvement (WP 2 and 4).
- Provide access to valuable information on irrigation in early stage (WP 2 and 4).
- Support strategic collaboration of innovative environmental industry clusters in Europe by developing new cluster initiatives in other EU regions (task 3.1) and developing a internationalisation strategy (task 3.2).
- Exchange of best practices and complementary staff exchanges between actors in different regional research driven clusters, making particular efforts to obtain solutions to address competitiveness through innovation in rural areas (task 4.4).
- Support for SMEs in research and technology transfer; strengthen the expertise and use of SMEs, the largest group in environmental clusters, in R&D benefits; improve international connections with similar companies and research institutes through the promotion of cross-regional cooperation in order to exchange and boost specialist skills and knowledge (WP 5).
- Develop a web-based information-platform to improve communication, effectiveness and performance of the tasks, to find individual logistic solutions and to ensure a long-term information flow during and after the project duration (task 5.1).
- Transfer the practical oriented information derived from the research projects to end users, especially landowners, power plant engineers and municipal energy suppliers, initiating or strengthening this way national plans and increasing the number of initiatives regarding the use of SRCs (task 5.3).
- Further dissemination of the results of related projects, reaching new targeted groups in third countries (task 5.6).
Innovation objectives:
- Create business opportunities between SMEs, SME Associations and RTDs, enhanced via public authorities support through adequate policy formulations.
- Open up new markets for renewable energy sources (especially energy wood) and ensure a free market development in the selected bioenergy regions by having access to the knowledge about adapted logistic concepts for optimised mobilisation of energy wood.
- Provide access to valuable information on using wood chips as a source of energy to related stakeholders and decision makers to motivate them and to transfer knowledge about the potential of optimised mobilisation of energy wood and sustainable local value chains.
- Support and enable the broad establishment of SRP based biomass regions in Europe by lower the barriers for technical and non-technical innovations in the SRPs sector and improving the framework conditions for the logistic chain of lignocellulosic biomass in SRPs in Europe.
In order to achieve these objectives, the work was organised in 6 Work Packages (WPs) within the ROKWOOD project. Out of 6 WPs, there were 4 “Coordination” WPs (WP1 – WP4), 1 “Other activities” WP (WP 5) and 1 “Management” WP:
- Work Package 1: analysis of regional clusters state of play.
- Work Package 2: definition of Joint Action Plan and Financial Plan.
- Work Package 3: international cooperation strategy.
- Work Package 4: measures towards the implementation of the Joint Action Plan.
- Work Package 5: dissemination and exploitation.
- Work Package 6: project management and coordination.
The work started with WP1, focused on the characterisation of the regional clusters state of play. Different exercises were proposed, like identification of regions and key actors, choice of PESTLE factors, compilation of current research within and outside the consortium, elaboration of a directory of RTD offer and demand, identification of obstacles and barriers hindering the production and utilisation of wooden biomass as biofuel, analysis of existing regional state of play and cluster policy, elaboration of a SWOT analysis and identification of European and international initiatives and projects.
The main aim of WP2 was the definition of a Joint Action Plan (JAP) and a Financial Plan (FP) for transregional cluster consolidation. The JAP was intended to express the partners’ strategy to drive economic development through research and technological development activities, identifying the partners involved, objectives, activities, responsibilities and schedule for transnational cooperation. Once ready, the consortium considered that a reduced public version should be prepared to use it as dissemination material and also to bring together possible future collaborators for the initiatives described within it. It was prepared in a printable dossier format, respecting the ROKWOOD self image already created. It was uploaded to the website, being therefore accessible to everyone.
The FP describes in detail the possibilities identified to finance the implementation of the activities included in the JAP. It gathers information related to local, regional, national, European and international funding opportunities, including suitable private investments or public funding schemes. The experience and advice of different ranges of stakeholders in the biomass sector (regional authorities, experts from research centres and universities, owners of private and public companies, etc.) was highly considered. The FP has made use of the results of the previous work focusing on the research topics chosen within the consortium and checking the state-of-the-art at EU level, the sub-topic areas at regional level considering the objectives and chosen scopes and the R&D activities defined at regional level and the resources needed for their implementation. Thus, a catalogue of suitable funding sources at different spatial levels (regional, national, European) and for different areas (R&D, dissemination, implementation, etc.) was elaborated, and then the activities of the JAP were linked to the funding sources of the catalogue.
The aim of the Policy Briefs (WP2) was to put together a series of recommendations for policy makers, public authorities and governmental agencies to support the development, production and use of SRPs derived woodfuel in each of the partner countries. Each cluster developed one policy brief (six in total). Due to the regional focus of the ROKWOOD project, the briefs are inevitably shaped by the characteristics of each cluster region and are therefore primarily focused on influencing regional policy (although this does vary to some extent, based on the structure of governance in each country). Ultimately, it was hoped that they directly influenced all levels of formal policymaking and the development of action plans and guidance within each country. Some of the recommendations clearly link to the measures identified within the JAP. They were also formatted as happened with the JAP.
WP3 was devoted to international cooperation strategies. Internationalisation is a key success factor in worldwide competition, and it was therefore an important component of ROKWOOD innovation policy. It was consequently needed to identify priority markets for cluster members to enhance export opportunities for European business entities in the wooden biomass production sector, as well as clusters from third countries active in the resource-efficient production and use of wooden biomass and of cooperation possibilities in RTD and innovation support services with these clusters. Afterwards, it was needed to create international cooperation strategies for developing collaborative research and trading opportunities involving SRPs. In order for the industry to develop and respond to the current and future requirements for large volumes of sustainably produced biomass, there needs to be much greater co-ordination and co-operation between SMEs and researchers in different countries, both in the EU and beyond. WP3 enabled the consortium partners to identify and correspond with other SMEs and researchers work.
WP4 was devoted to the development of measures towards the implementation of the JAP. First, a catalogue of at least 15 project ideas in total for three subthemes (harvesting the SRPs and processing the biomass, end use of the SRPs products and multifunctionality (added value) of the SRPs) was elaborated. Then, mutual learning and exchanging best practices were encouraged. The six clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face common challenges, and it is intended that sharing knowledge and experience in this way will help to support innovation in this sector and address the barriers identified under previous tasks. Therefore, the clusters identified several case studies in their region, and the 40 best case studies were selected for the projection of a Best Practices Booklet. Furthermore, site visits alongside the project meetings were facilitated to create opportunities for the sharing of knowledge amongst ROKWOOD partners and for networking, both within and outside of the consortium. Exchange programmes were also developed in order to facilitate the exchange of expertise. The exchange of staff ensures that best practice is spread and further developed to the highest standard throughout Europe in order to guarantee that the regions can benefit from each other’s expertise. The staff exchange program aimed to strengthen research partnerships and networking activities between actors in different regional research driven clusters.
Regional workshops have been also organised. They were designed to support the efficient uptake of biomass regions in Europe by raising awareness of its potential as a multifunctional environmental crop, attracting stakeholders from regions where the local wooden biomass potential is still to be uncovered.
Regarding dissemination, the project website (http://www.rokwood.eu) was established and it has been continuously updated. The website is the main access point to the materials made available by the project, and it was intended to use the synergistic effects of connecting itself to existing resources managed by the ROKWOOD partnership and social media such as Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia and Facebook, ensuring that ROKWOOD gets visibility online to a broad audience. 10,009 sessions in the website have been held since May 1st, 2013 until November 30th, 2015 by 6,9126 users with 35,617 page visits, being 61.16% new sessions, and the average visit duration is 00:03:32. The top 3 countries regarding the website use are Spain, with 1,889 sessions, UK with 1,604 sessions and Germany with 1,590 sessions. It is also remarkable the fact that the website has registered 344 sessions from Brazil and 222 from the US.
The website has an important section called Marketplace, devoted to connect relevant actors of the sector that grew together with the website development throughout the project lifetime. With this aim, relevant institutions and companies were addressed and invited to register. 287 relevant actors have been registered up to now, being remarkable the fact that 86 come from Poland, 45 from Spain and other 45 from the UK.
With regards to social media, ROKWOOD has a Facebook page that up to now has 92 Likes, a Twitter profile with 233 followers and 656 tweets and retweets, a group in LinkedIn with 23 members and 17 open debates and a YouTube channel with 864 visits.
Another important dissemination tool is the project video. 6 videos have been produced in 6 different languages (English, German, Spanish, Polish, Swedish and French), and versions oriented to different audiences (public, farmers and policymakers) were also prepared in all languages mentioned. These videos are shorter versions of the “official” English video, with different interviews and no subtitles, but locution in each of the languages chosen. Therefore, 18 videos have been created in total, and it is on the partners’ hands which one should be used in each occasion.
The partners were very active in attending events, disseminating the project results and creating joint publications. In addition, the ROKWOOD partners produced and published a final project publication: "ROKWOOD – Resource efficient production and utilisation of wooden biomass from SRPs – European Best Practice and Key Findings".
Last but not least, the partners organised the project Final Conference. It was decided to split the final conference into two different events: a workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E), held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015, and an evening reception for policy makers following the Biomass and Energy Crops V in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015.
Eventually, project management within WP6 has been carried out in parallel to the rest of activities, ensuring the smooth running of the project and the correct organisation, communication and co-operation between the beneficiaries and with the European Commission. Four official project meetings have been held during this period: the Kick-off Meeting in Málaga, Spain, the 1st Progress Meeting in Lund, Sweden, the 2nd Progress Meeting in Bristol, England, the Mid-term Meeting in Goslar, Germany, the 3rd Progress Meeting in Mullingar, Ireland, the 4th Progress Meeting in Warsaw, Poland and the Final Meeting in Brussels, Belgium.
Project Results:
Biomass production and trade have proven to be a flourishing sector that requires adapted solutions to meet the current international demand. Thus, the ROKWOOD project supported the transnational cooperation between six European research-driven clusters from the biomass field in order to improve research and technological development, market uptake and to increase investments in wooden biomass production and utilisation schemes at regional level. The six participating regional clusters were coordinated in order to find out the main obstacles and barriers hindering the development of local biomass regions in Europe, to build up a Joint Action Plan (JAP) at European level to drive economic development through research and technological development activities in the selected topics of sustainable production and efficient use of wooden biomass, to identify financial resources for the development of innovative products and services in this sector, to generate at least 10 innovative cooperative project ideas tackling the technical barriers (e.g. harvesting, drying technologies) and to reach as many stakeholders as possible by effective dissemination activities, among other aims.
As a result of all work carried out, the outputs / foregrounds of ROKWOOD project could be summarised as follows:
- Analysis of regional clusters state of play – inventory of research infrastructure and facilities, PESTLE analysis, directory of RTD offer and demand, SWOT analysis.
- Catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas (Joint Action Plan – JAP), including an edited printable version.
- Policy Briefs, including edited printable versions.
- Financial Plan (FP) to secure the execution of activities planned in the JAP.
- International cooperation strategy, including a description of international priority markets.
- Best Practices Booklet, compiling the 40 most valuable regional best practices identified by the partners, including an edited printable version.
- Site visits in each of the concerned region, facilitating the exchange of knowledge.
- Staff exchanges, encouraging the best practices spreading.
- Training workshops, supporting the widespreading of ROKWOOD findings among regional actors in each of the clusters.
- Final project publication, including an edited printable version, that summarises all project activities and findings.
- Final Conference, the perfect forum to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD project.
The work carried out within the different WPs could be summarised as follows:
WORK PACKAGE 1: ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL CLUSTERS STATE OF PLAY. WP leader: SP.
The main purpose of WP1 was to get a complete and cross-sectional diagnosis of the state of play of the six participating research-driven clusters and of additional regional capabilities around which research could be carried out.
Task 1.1: Characterisation of regional clusters state of play. Task leader: SP.
All project partners performed a detailed analysis of the state of play of their respective research-driven clusters, that contained findings on relevant regional public and private RTD actors for the creation of a transnational database, business entities active in the production of wooden biomass, financial actors relevant for R&D and innovation, regional research infrastructures and facilities for conducting research in the sector of wooden biomass production, etc. All clusters made a PESTLE analysis (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental factors) in depth for their respective regions in the field of wooden biomass production and utilisation. Furthermore, a selection scheme for the identification of key actors was defined to establish the methodology for the selection of key stakeholders in the targeted regions. Finally, all cluster regions did an inventory showing the available resources for research activities in their respective cluster.
All this information was used for the preparation of deliverables D1.1 “inventory of research infrastructure and facilities”, D1.2 “PESTLE analysis”, and D1.3 “selection scheme for identification of key actors”, by SP.
Task 1.2: Identification of relevant RTD issues in participating regions. Task leader: TTZ.
This task was intended to identify relevant research and technological development (RTD) issues in the area of wooden biomass production and utilisation as resource-efficient biofuel in regional existing policies, plans, activities and RTD actors. For the identification of joint research topics and to support SMEs in pan-European research and technology transfer, a directory of RTD offer and demand was developed. For this purpose all clusters analysed the state of play in the SRP sector in their region. The aspects to be investigated for the later evaluation of common research topics were: technological state of the art in wooden biomass production and use as biofuel, existing agricultural technologies, supply chain arrangements in European biomass regions, potentials for improvement and research needs in the addressed area, technology and know-how offers for other regions, technology and know-how requests from other regions and best practices (regional programmes, research activities, etc.) to be exchanged amongst the partners. The results revealed large differences in the state of play in the SRP sectors of the different clusters.
In addition, information on relevant both running and finished projects concerning research and technological development in the SRP sectors within the six clusters was compiled. Considered aspects comprised the financing, the duration, a short description of the project and the participating research institutions.
A questionnaire concerning the research needs of the SMEs in the SRP sector by identifying obstacles and barriers hindering the production and utilisation of wooden biomass as biofuel was also created in two versions: one for the biomass producers and one for the biomass consumers, respectively focused on their own peculiarities. This double-faced approach provided a deeper knowledge of the needs and barriers hindering the growth of the sector. Aspects investigated by the questionnaire concerned the availability of machinery, planting material and biomass supply chains, climatic conditions, energy market structures, the legal framework and others.
Existing regional and national RTD policies and plans, their evolution and their impact were investigated by the participating local authorities in order to reinforce and better design the regional policies supporting the resource-efficient use of wooden biomass as biofuel, maintaining at the same time the dynamics and potentiality of this sector.
The results of all this work were used for the preparation of deliverables D1.4 “Directory of RTD offer and demand” by CSE, D1.5 “Current research within and outside the consortium” by TTZ, D1.6 “Obstacles and barriers for wooden biomass production” by EUBIA and D1.7 “Analysis of existing regional state of play and cluster policy” by RPAA.
Task 1.3: SWOT analysis of each region. Task leader: CSE.
The objective of this task was to identify impediments and factors of success of regional research-driven clusters through a SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play and, especially, of the PESTLE analysis developed within task 1.1. This analysis also would help to find out the barriers for growing SRCs and using the wooden biomass, as well as other barriers hindering the sector improvement. The matrixes obtained from the results of all clusters would be the basis for establishing a common SWOT presenting common strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from an economic, innovation and RTD perspective.
The results of this work were used for the preparation of deliverable D1.8 “SWOT analysis” by CSE.
Task 1.4: Analysis of links to other European and international initiatives and projects. Task leader: EUBIA.
The aim of this task was setting up a list with reference to possible links to existing European Technology platforms, Joint technology initiatives and other European projects in order to secure the best possible connection with other EU initiatives. All project partners were asked to compile all information they had about existing European and international initiatives and projects around the production and utilisation of wooden biomass. In addition, a comprehensive search for further initiatives not known within the consortium was conducted as well through daily check of main European bulletins, European projects activities, web research, information given by other local authors, etc. The main output of this task was the identification of related European and international initiatives in order to exclude duplication in research efforts and gain synergy effects. 8 main categories of projects were identified: supply chain development, information platform, SRPs implementation and performances assessment, market development, SRPs promotion though awareness campaigns and policy actions, technology development, enhancing sustainability and SRPs guidelines and standards, R&D coordination and future planning.
This information was used for the preparation of deliverable D1.9 “European and international initiatives and projects around wooden biomass production and utilisation” by EUBIA.
WORK PACKAGE 2: DEFINITION OF A JOINT ACTION PLAN AND A FINANCIAL PLAN. WP leader: BIOZ.
The main aim of WP2 was the definition of a Joint Action Plan (JAP) and a Financial Plan (FP) to secure the execution of activities planned in the JAP for transregional cluster consolidation. This JAP was intended to express the partners’ strategy to drive economic development through research and technological development activities, identifying the partners involved, objectives, activities, responsibilities and schedule for transnational cooperation. Another important task was the elaboration of policy briefs for the future implementation of strategies.
Task 2.1: definition of regional and transnational research topics. Task leader: C4E.
According to the findings of the analyses carried out within WP1, this task intended to define regional and transnational research topics to be gathered in a cross-regional research topics agenda. This agenda sets priorities for research in the field of resource efficient wooden biomass production and utilisation as biofuel including development perspectives, strategic goals and concrete development activities. The main aim is to improve the competitiveness of the sector in Europe and enhance the collaboration between the regional clusters.
The resulting 6 transnational research groups were focused on the following research topics: resource mapping, adaptation & agronomy, quality & standards, economic benefits to society, multifunctional uses, production economics, technological advancements and refining supply chains.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.10 “catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas”, by BIOZ.
Task 2.2: development of joint activities. Task leader: BIOZ.
The main aim of this task was the preparation of the Joint Action Plan (JAP), which is indeed one of the main outputs of the ROKWOOD project. The JAP is intended to express the strategy for the participating clusters to drive economic development through joint R&D activities in the production and utilisation of wooden biomass.
Each cluster summarised their obstacles, interests, offers and needs according to their relevance order in the region, that were afterwards listed by importance for their region and transformed into the ideal situation towards they would like the woody biomass sector to be driven. These were named as “ideal situations” or “Topics” in the task exercises. These JAP topics were defined by “Sub-topics”, also called “Future Joint Actions”, which represented the priority measures to take into consideration. These actions were the basis for defining the “R&D Activities” or “Steps to implementation”. Each cluster was asked to elaborate concrete future joint activities which could drive the economic development in the production and utilisation of woody biomass in their areas, being always based on the regional problems of each cluster. All clusters discussed about their proposed topics or ideal situations, prioritised them, chose those to be finally worked on the JAP and created six working groups to explore and work on each of the topics chosen. These topics were the following: development of pilot or demonstration projects and development of regional SRP clusters, develop lobbying at an EU task group level, develop regional species guidelines & transnational agronomy development, cultivation / logistics / end-use knowledge transference, multi-function / added value research and develop education and training programs for sector stakeholders.
It was decided that a reduced public version should be prepared. In addition to the protection of the confidential information, this public version of the JAP could work as a powerful dissemination tool that could potentially help to the JAP to be implemented, bringing together possible future collaborators for the initiatives described, although this was not initially planned in the Annex I. It was prepared in a printable dossier format, respecting the ROKWOOD self image in order to make it attractive enough for the stakeholders (Figures 1-6).
The output of this task was compiled in D2.10 “catalogue of future joint activities, research areas and project ideas” by BIOZ.
Task 2.3: elaboration of policy briefs for the future implementation of strategies. Task leader: CSE.
The aim of this task was to put together a series of recommendations for policy makers, public authorities and governmental agencies to support the development, production and use of SRPs derived woodfuel in each of the partner countries. These recommendations take the form of a ‘policy brief’ and draw on the robust evidence base gathered from the outputs of the previous ROKWOOD WPs and tasks, and constitute another of the key output of the ROKWOOD project.
Each cluster developed one policy brief. Due to the regional focus of the ROKWOOD project, the briefs are inevitably shaped by the characteristics of each cluster region and are therefore primarily focused on influencing regional policy (although this does vary to some extent, based on the structure of governance in each country). Ultimately, it is hoped that they will directly influence all levels of formal policymaking and the development of action plans and guidance within each country. Some of the recommendations clearly link to the measures identified within the JAP.
The policy briefs were developed by defining the issues and solutions, deciding on policy brief options and defining the recommendations for the policy. To define the issues and solutions, a review of the SWOT and PESTLE analyses conducted under previous tasks was done. The SWOT analysis in particular was heavily used both to identify issues and to find potential solutions, with most of the issues being derived from weaknesses and threats in the SWOT analysis. Solutions were sought by looking for relationships, for example a strength that could overcome a threat or an opportunity that could negate a weakness. The resulting recommendations were then tested against SMART characteristics (i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound). Before finalising the policy options some external factors were also considered, including: what policies are already in development that might impact the SRP sector? If we are to successfully steer the policy framework, are there any deadlines that need to be met? Are there any key consultations that should be responded to? What is the potential for support for SRPs under the next round of the Rural Development Programme? Are there any prospects of other public sector funding for SRPs? In the event of there being several policy options that addressed the same issue, an attempt was made to combine possible solutions into one coherent set of policy options.
Once the policy recommendations were narrowed down and decided upon, each cluster chose a number of recommendations to elaborate on more fully in the final policy briefs.
The result of this work was the Policy Briefs. They were also formatted to make them more attractive for readers and then distribute them among relevant stakeholders (Figures 7-15).
It was agreed that an opportunity should also be provided for relevant stakeholders to comment on the draft policy briefs. These should ideally be both from within and outside each cluster region as the briefs were supposed to be relevant to all levels of policymaking.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.11 “policy briefs and financial plan” by IFAPA.
Task 2.4: development of Financial Plan. Task leader: IFAPA.
This task was devoted to the development of a Financial Plan (FP), in which the possibilities to finance the implementation of the JAP were identified and described in detail. In order to achieve this, all project partners gathered information related to local, regional, national, European and international funding opportunities including private investments or public funding schemes suitable for the activities planned in the JAP. The regional authorities taking part in ROKWOOD were expected to involve the management authorities related to the Structural Funds in their concerned regions. The experience and advice of different ranges of stakeholders in the biomass sector (regional authorities, experts from research centres and universities, owners of private and public companies, etc.) was highly considered. The FP made use of the results of the previous tasks focusing on the research topics chosen within the consortium and checking the state-of-the-art at EU level, the sub-topic areas at regional level considering the objectives and chosen scopes and the R&D activities defined at regional level and the resources needed for their implementation.
Three key chronological steps were developed to obtain the required data:
- Identification of suitable funding sources at different levels (regional, national, European) and different areas (R&D, dissemination, implementation, etc.) to create a catalogue of funding sources opportunities. As a result, the partners provided 20 regional funding sources and 40 national funding sources. Regarding the EU level, diverse calls of H2020 were identified, being possible that a lot of them could be related to biomass and SRPs, as well as Interreg V, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Life+ and European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF), among others.
- Identification and definition of joint activities in the production and utilisation of woody biomass. The activities to be considered in the FP were obtained from the JAP, the output of task 2.2. The aim of this step was to link the activities identified in the JAP for each of the priority topics to the funding sources and provide additional information to achieve the JAP effective implementation.
- Definition of a mechanism to link the specific activities defined in the step II with the specific activities gathered in step I to secure the execution and the implementation of activities planned in the JAP. Key indicators, data and information needed were defined and structured as follows: funding sources, timetable, estimation of the number of years for the execution of each activity and estimated costs to perform the activity. Each partner had to detail also the impact of each specific activity, the scope identifying also the potential stakeholders that could be affected by the execution of the activity, a risk analysis of the performance of the activity by a synthetic description of the main problems to be tackled, participating partners including institutions that could be involved to cooperate adequately for the fulfilment of each activity and the key indicators to carry out a monitoring process of the performance and results of the activities.
The output of this task was compiled in D2.11 “policy briefs and financial plan” by IFAPA.
WORK PACKAGE 3: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION STRATEGY. WP leader: MODR.
Global markets unleash opportunities for innovative European companies and research institutions: global challenges call for international cooperation in developing scientific solutions. Internationalisation is a key success factor in worldwide competition and is therefore an important component of ROKWOOD innovation policy.
The aim of WP3 was to develop a corresponding strategy for the internationalisation of ROKWOOD in order to act more successfully in the international context. Therefore, suitable international clusters had to be identified and activities for internationalisation to be developed in order to start successful international cooperation in the field of wooden biomass production and utilisation.
Task 3.1: identification of additional European and international clusters. Task leader: MODR.
The purpose of this task was to identify priority markets of woody biomass from SRPs inside and outside the EU and broaden the sector in worldwide competition by supporting strategic collaboration of innovative environmental industry. This was aimed to be achieved by analysing the needs and offers of neighbouring countries and global markets (technologies, intellectual property etc.). The ultimate intention was to enhance the export market for European business entities.
While the main duty in task 1.4 was excluding duplications in research efforts and gaining synergy effects by identifying initiatives as a first step, task 3.1 was focused on the identification of key stakeholders and priority markets to increase the market for export.
Thus, the project partners were asked to gather information on other EU member states and global markets regarding their woody biomass energy sector. The objective was exploring cooperation opportunities in R&D and innovation support services with other clusters active in the resource-efficient production and use of woody biomass and checking the possibilities of export for both the products (wood, seeds, equipment, etc.) and technologies. The countries and global markets explored the following: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, The Netherlands, Belgium, Croatia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Wales, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia (EU member states) and North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle East, India, China, Japan, Korea, Australia / New Zealand and Africa (global markets).
This work brought several main findings: the most important one was that information on SRP is not usually public, so the data obtained by the different partners were difficult to compare. Nevertheless, some conclusions could be extracted. It seems that the market for SRP products and services is actually small at global perspective. The most relevant topic for increasing the relevance of SRPs seems to be the multifunctionality (as in the case of forests). Using as a starting point the fact that they have a positive effect on the environment and water retention and taking into account they can act as a domestic energy source, it would be important that the Common Agricultural Policy in the case of EU and its equivalents in other countries could provide extra economic incentives for farmers to get involved. International scientific cooperation can definitively boost the sector.
The output of this task was compiled in D3.12 “description of international priority markets” by MODR.
Task 3.2: development of international cooperation strategies. Task leader: C4E.
This task dealt with the formation of international cooperation strategies for developing collaborative research and trading opportunities involving SRPs. Despite over 30 years of research, the energy crops sector is still very small and sporadic. In order for the industry to develop and respond to the current and future requirements for large volumes of sustainably produced biomass, there needs to be much greater co-ordination and co-operation between SMEs and researchers in different countries, both in the EU and beyond. Task 3.2 was an integral part of the ROKWOOD project enabling the consortium partners to identify and correspond with other SMEs and researchers with a view to sharing knowledge and experience, exploiting new market opportunities through partnerships and risk sharing, creating links that could lead to future collaborative research and development of projects and working together to achieve a better policy framework.
The outcome of this task and, more generally speaking, of WP3, is a catalogue of measures to be implemented in WP4 and WP5. The relation between this task and the rest of the coordination task of this project could be schematised as shown in Figure 16.
In order to overcome barriers for internationalisation, the development of strategies includes the definition of several aspects and the implementation of different activities:
specific economic and scientific goals connected with internationalisation (internationalising why), listing of potential partners (e.g. network and cluster players, institutions for the promotion of foreign trade), measures designed to reach goals or to address target markets or target groups (internationalising how), time and action plans (internationalising when), calculations for necessary financial and personnel resources and designation of instruments and measures of financial assistance (e.g. instruments and players for the promotion of foreign trade).
- Specific economic and scientific goals connected with internationalisation (internationalising why). Each cluster was tasked with identifying countries or regions of the world that they would like to engage with. Based on their choices, each cluster outlined the specific opportunities that exist and barriers that need to be overcome in order for SMEs and researchers in their own country to exploit these, including export opportunities, import opportunities, the possibility of using labour forces in other regions to reduce production costs and common research needs between the individual clusters and their chosen country or region.
- Listing of potential partners (e.g. network and cluster players, institutions for the promotion of foreign trade). The aim was to identify and make contact with SMEs and researchers with whom the clusters may have similar interests and could benefit from synergies, as well as identifying key personnel and organisations within partner countries that could help cluster members exploit opportunities for European and worldwide collaborative efforts. The outcome of these activities was aimed to be a better understanding of national and international programmes and the right people to contact to develop ideas. The clusters were also asked to familiarise themselves with the H2020 programme and identify their National Contact Points (NCPs). As partners continued to develop projects in WP4, these NCPs were key to prove invaluable sources of advice and information.
- Measures designed to reach goals or to address target markets or target groups (internationalising how). The entire H2020 programme was scrutinised, summarising all the relevant programmes that exist and indicating any opportunities for collaborative projects involving SRPs. In addition, clusters were asked to submit a shortlist of researchers in foreign countries (EU and non-EU countries) and their own country who might benefit from staff exchanges. The researchers that were identified had to be involved in research activities of particular interest to the clusters based on the outputs of previous tasks. The lists produced by each cluster had to provide a good introduction to key SRP researchers in Europe and elsewhere and provide partners with a good databank for identifying potential partners for future projects.
Thus, the cluster partners formed a good understanding of the overseas markets of critical importance, aiming therefore to exploit the hotspots identified. Then, it was aimed to explore the opportunity for SRP companies to be involved as part of planned international trade missions, to identify potential funding pots to take groups of farmers abroad to see SRP supply chains and utilisation technology in different countries and to explore the opportunity for inviting overseas delegations to the last European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EUBC&E) to highlight partnership opportunities with European SRP companies.
Through this, there was a chance for the ROKWOOD project to get noticed, to create links between clusters and encourage transnational trade opportunities. This activity was ultimately carried forward under task 4.5 (training workshops) and task 5.6 (final project conference).
Seven additional tasks were proposed to further improve the results of this task, like enriching the ROKWOOD website database by including information related to machinery availability, SRP variety producers, SRP trial data information or SRP researchers, distributing the JAP among EC Commissioners, NCPs in each country or organisations identified in ICS, and distributing research agenda among research organisations and research councils in the own country or researchers identified in ICS, among others.
The output of this task was compiled in D3.13 “catalogue of measures based on an international cooperation strategy” by C4E.
WORK PACKAGE 4: MEASURES TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT ACTION PLAN. WP leader: CSE.
The main aims of WP4 are to make use of the possibilities of synergies and opportunities for mutual learning and exchange of best practices, leading to the production of a Best Practice Booklet including the 40 best practices regarding production of wooden biomass and utilisation as biofuel in the participating regions, as well as to coordinate and accompany activities for the implementation of the JAP and the international cooperation strategy.
Task 4.1: identification and definition of research related projects. Task leader: EKSPERT.
The aim of this task was to develop a catalogue of at least 15 project ideas in total for three subthemes. Developed project ideas were meant to match with regional, national or European funding. Responsibilities were distributed amongst the partners for initiating those projects.
The three subthemes were defined according to the findings of the previous WPs. In the JAP, SWOT and other deliverables, three themes occur most frequently:
- Harvesting the SRPs and processing the biomass. This subtheme was relevant to several JAP Topics (mostly 1, 3 and 4). Research projects had to mainly target new technologies, machinery and techniques for harvesting processes, including varied conditions (soil, vegetation period, weather, logistic etc.) and drying, chipping, storage and transportation of biomass.
- End use of the SRPs products. This subtheme was relevant to several JAP Topics (mostly 1 and 4). Research projects had to mainly target new technologies, machinery and techniques for end use, including production of pellets, as feedstock for the pulp and paper industry, etc.
- Multifunctionality (added value) of the SRPs. This subtheme was most relevant to JAP Topic 5. Research projects had to mainly answer the question how and where SRP can be or should be used.
Project ideas had to be related to the JAP activities, especially those which will be implemented after the ROKWOOD project ends. Further analysis and project idea development was conducted once the initial project idea descriptions were completed.
The output of this task was be compiled in D4.14 “best practices booklet” by CSE.
Task 4.2: exchange of best practices. Task leader: CSE.
One of the main aims of WP4 was to encourage mutual learning and the exchange of best practices. The focus of this particular task was to pull together examples of best practices within each region for distribution both between project partners and externally. The concept of best practice can be defined as the application of a method or technique that has consistently shown successful results within a specific context. Best practice case studies do not need to show ‘gold standard’ examples, rather they should simply provide information about what is and is not working under certain conditions so that this knowledge can be applied to other projects. The six clusters, in spite of their structural differences, face common challenges, and it was intended that sharing knowledge and experience in this way would help to support innovation in this sector and address the barriers identified under previous tasks.
Each cluster had to identify up to 20 case studies (minimum of 12) that represented good examples of a particular aspect of the SRP supply chain within their region or country. Case studies were selected using a list of categories as a guide.
Clusters first submitted brief descriptions (~100 words) of their proposed case studies in English. As supply chains for SRP are at varying stages of development across the different regions, some cluster partners found difficult to find a suitable number of case study examples from within their region or country. In those cases in which it was difficult to find a suitable number of case study examples from a region or country, then other countries outside those represented by the ROKWOOD consortium could be screened.
Some case studies were initially selected for the policy briefs, that could be also included afterwards within the final 40 to be presented in the Best Practice Booklet.
Each cluster then nominated 5 of their proposed case studies that most effectively demonstrate good / best practice. The idea here was to have 30 good case studies, from which clusters could then select a small number of examples to include in their policy briefs. Clusters then selected their chosen examples (e.g. 5 or 6 in total from their own region/ country or from elsewhere) for inclusion to their policy briefs. Once the final policy brief case study allocations was agreed, each cluster prepared their given set of case studies in English.
Each cluster then wrote up their remaining case studies in English. All the case study write-ups, including those previously prepared for the policy briefs, were then collated and the 40 examples considered to be the most valuable were selected, finalised where necessary and incorporated into a professionally designed booklet for wider dissemination at the final conference and via the project website (Figure 17). The booklet was uploaded in electronic format to the ROKWOOD and 200 printed copies were taken to the Final Conference in Brussels, Belgium, on October 20th, 2015 for distribution to project partners and delegates.
The output of this task was compiled in D4.14 “best practices booklet” by CSE.
Task 4.3: site visits. Task leader: DIT.
Site visits were foreseen in each partner region, and they were considered as networking opportunities with other cluster partners. The aim of this task was to create opportunities for the sharing of knowledge amongst ROKWOOD partners and for networking, both within and outside of the consortium. Examples of best practice within the local supply chains to each of the clusters were meant to be demonstrated during visits to sites, which were organised as part of the ROKWOOD project meetings.
Each regional cluster was expected to organise site visits, taking place right after the project meetings. The host country had to invite industry stakeholders and interested parties from outside of the cluster in order to broaden the networking opportunities available to ROKWOOD partners.
It was expected that the site visits covered key elements of the local supply chain, including (where possible) the harvesting, processing and storing of biomass fuel. The selected locations had to represent examples of best practice within the host country.
Following each of the site visits, participants from the host country had to produce a summary report. It was important to include a detailed description of the region, including key contextual information and issues influencing the biomass sector in the area. This was likely to require information about local or national policy instruments, legal frameworks and market contexts. Supportive figures, data and references had also to be provided.
During the whole project duration, six site visits were arranged along with a project meeting. These where the ones organised during the first reporting period by the Spanish cluster during the Kick-off meeting in Málaga, Spain on January 22nd – 23rd, 2013, by the Swedish cluster during the 1st Progress Meeting in Hörby, Sweden on June, 25th – 27th, 2013, and by the UK cluster during the 2nd Progress Meeting in Bristol, UK on January, 27th – 30th, 2014, as well as the ones organised during the second reporting period by the German cluster during the Mid-term meeting in Goslar, Germany on June, 4th – 6th, 2014, by the Irish cluster during the 3rd Progress Meeting in Mullingar, Ireland on November, 11th – 13th 2014 and by the Polish cluster during the 4th Progress Meeting in Warsaw, Poland on May, 19th – 21st, 2015.
The output of this was compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Task 4.4: staff exchange. Task leader: IFAPA.
This task was devoted to the development of exchange programmes in order to facilitate the exchange of expertise. The exchange of staff ensures that best practice is spread and further developed to the highest standard throughout Europe in order to guarantee that the regions can benefit from each other’s expertise. The staff exchange program, elaborated in detail by the project partners, aimed to strengthen research partnerships and networking activities between actors in different regional research driven clusters.
An exchange programme was developed for different target audiences: students and trainees, researchers, representatives from governmental organisations, etc., trying that the needs of the target countries were best-possibly respected. It was foreseen that at least 2 staff exchanges per region would be executed during the project lifetime. At the end of the project, a report was prepared with the aim to give guidance for further staff exchanges after the project completion in order to guarantee the sustainability of the exchange programme. It is important to highlight the obvious link this task has with the engagement of researchers as part of the international cooperation strategy (task 3.2).
This task covered the exchange of knowledge and expertise both between ROKWOOD participants and amongst relevant external individuals / organisations. The types of exchanges covered under this task could include study tours, job shadowing, back filling staff positions, institutional exchange, accelerated learning exchanges, seasonal exchanges, management exchanges, project based exchanges, workshops, etc. After considering it, it was decided that the two types of staff exchanges that would take place within the project could be:
- Exchange program Type I. Type I exchanges focused on the needs of ROKWOOD partners and it was possible that they could be funded through the ROKWOOD project. All project partners had to consider what expertise and / or experience they wished to gain under this task, and also what their cluster could offer to other ROKWOOD participants. Whilst it was expected that Type I exchanges would primarily focus on sharing knowledge between those already involved in the ROKWOOD project, participants could also request visits to or from other individuals or organisations outside of the consortium. Where ROKWOOD partners needed to travel, the costs connected to Type I exchange visits were aimed to be borne by the person who visited rather than the host. Clusters had to decide individually how their combined ‘travel’ budgets would be allocated regarding the exchanges. Each cluster had to work together to set out the locations that cluster members wanted to visit themselves (i.e. ‘outgoing’ visits), to describe requests for visitors with specific expertise from either within or outside of the consortium (i.e. ‘incoming’ visits) and to set out opportunities from their own region that could be of interest to other ROKWOOD partners (i.e. specific ‘offers’).
- Exchange program Type II. Type II exchanges were externally funded and could take place either during the ROKWOOD project or after its ending. They could involve ROKWOOD participants, external parties or a combination of both. All partners had to provide information on funded exchange programmes of their region, their country and also at EU level (e.g. Marie Curie) to facilitate an exchange of potential students, researchers and representatives from governmental organisations. This activity could not overlap the work already carried out in relation to the identification of funding sources within task 3.2.
It was decided that at least two staff exchanges had to be arranged per cluster, being cost effective and of direct benefit to their members (Figures 18 and 19 for staff exchanges examples).
The outputs of this task were compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Task 4.5: workshops. Task leader: ASAJA.
The participation of appropriate stakeholders was essential for the ROKWOOD project outcomes to be truly relevant and useful. Such stakeholders may include, for example, bioenergy farmers and technology providers, but also policy makers and regional research actors. Activities aimed at promoting the involvement of a wide range of organisations were therefore particularly valuable in terms of evaluating the results of the project. In this sense, the ROKWOOD consortium has been organising regional workshops within this task.
The workshops were designed to support the efficient uptake of biomass regions in Europe by raising awareness of its potential as a multifunctional environmental crop, attracting stakeholders from regions where the local wooden biomass potential is still to be uncovered.
It was agreed to have the equivalent of at least two days of training workshops in each of the six regions where the clusters are located. Clusters could decide whether they wished to hold one long workshop or whether they thought it was more appropriate in their region to split the time allowance into, for example, two 1-day workshops. The target groups were relevant stakeholders in the field of wooden biomass production, especially SMEs, what may include bioenergy farmers, technology providers etc., and also policy makers and regional research actors. Each cluster had to aim for at least 30 attendees in total across all their workshops.
The contents could vary from one region to the other, i.e. they could be tailor made according to the location, audience, etc., a general structure was designed (Figure 20 for training workshops programme example, and Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24 for training workshops held examples).
The outputs of this task were compiled in D4.15 “report on successful completion of site visits and staff exchanges” by IFAPA.
Potential Impact:
The need for sustainable sources of locally produced biomass is widely recognised, but despite over 30 years of research and development and 25 years of policy support there are still only around 50,000 hectares of SRPs planted in the EU28. In some of the countries represented by ROKWOOD, such as Sweden and UK, the area of SRPs has fallen rapidly in recent years. The ROKWOOD partners have attempted to understand the reasons for this lack of penetration and propose measures to reverse this trend and kick start the industry.
ROKWOOD has been successful in a number of ways: the showcasing of best practice should help redress some widely held entrenched views on the usability of these biomass fuels. In addition, the project has thrown light on many multifunctional uses of SRPs that should be exploited to benefit local communities.
The lack of any lobbying power has meant that the sector has been in the past the recipient of numerous policy measures that have failed. ROKWOOD has enabled sector participants to produce coherent policy wish lists that have a greater likelihood of influencing policy makers. The project has also facilitated greater networking opportunities amongst SMEs which should help develop partnerships and improve export opportunities. The agenda of research requirements will hopefully lead to funding being channelled into more applied areas that will benefit project practitioners.
Project highlights
The final part of ROKWOOD involved the first steps to implement the Joint Action Plan (JAP). Each cluster has run training workshops, conducted site visits, engaged in staff exchanges, promoted the project through publications and presented at conferences. For many of the consortium partners these facets of the project have provided the highlights.
An important output of ROKWOOD was a book of best practice case studies covering every step in the biomass supply chain, from initial business planning to the distribution and use of the heat and power produced. This authoritative document has been downloaded over 1,000 times, and is almost certainly the first time that such a wealth of information from SRP practitioners has been brought together into one volume. Many of the initiatives described such as the self supply of SRP woodfuel at Gurteen College and district heating at Beuchte Energy Village could and should be replicated elsewhere. Furthermore, the use of SRP as biofilters as demonstrated in Northern Ireland and Sweden exemplify the wider opportunities for multifunctional benefits and efficient land use.
From the outset of the project the co-ordinator stated that there was freedom within the project to adapt the description of work and make the tasks fit the local needs of the clusters. Some of the partners have looked to really add value and go beyond the deliverables in the description of work.
Thus, the partners worked on the production of a European SRP machinery database and a SRP varieties database. They contacted companies across Europe in order to fill in this information. The consortium also decided to translate from Swedish into English the “Willow as Fuel book”, printed copies and distributed among relevant stakeholders.
The consortium has used the project to challenge entrenched views about SRPs and educate policy makers, conservationists, wood fuel suppliers and farmers about the opportunities that SRPs provide. As a result the partners made a big effort in policy tasks and tried to engage with particular groups in their training sessions and site visits. During the English cluster meeting in Bristol an evening seminar was hosted for policy makers and key local influencers. The partners were very proactive speaking at numerous conferences about the ROKWOOD project. As a result of talks at different events, the research community of the concerned regions is well aware of the project and should be ready to work towards future R&D needs.
Project partners have sought to make links with other European funded projects. A strategic relationship was made with the sister project, LogistEC (Logistics for Energy Crops Biomass, www.logistecproject.eu) leading to two ROKWOOD partners speaking at LogistEC events in Brussels.
However, not only these events were relevant to reach important stakeholders of the sector from across Europe. A project conference to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD was planned by the end of the project as an opportunity to disseminate the project’s results to a wide audience of the scientific community. The main objective of the conference was to disseminate ROKWOOD results and to initiate further joint initiatives. In order to maximise the impact, it was decided to organise two events: a ROKWOOD Workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E) held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015 and a special ROKWOOD session and evening reception for policy makers within the Biomass and Energy Crops V Conference in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015.
These events gave us an opportunity to have our voices heard and input into their project outputs – each workshop was attended by EU policy makers and produced a list of recommended actions to help the sector grow.
Outputs from the project
A brief summary of the project outputs can be summarised as follows (Table 1):
- Training courses: N. Germany, 1; Mid / Western Ireland, 4; Mazovia, Poland, 1; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 5; South West England, 5; Total, 17.
- People who have received training: N. Germany, 20; Mid / Western Ireland, 95; Mazovia, Poland, 32; Andalusia, Spain, 260; Skane, Sweden, 53; South West England, 124; Total, 584.
- Site visits: N. Germany, 5; Mid / Western Ireland, 7; Mazovia, Poland, 4; Andalusia, Spain, 2; Skane, Sweden, 27; South West England, 7; Total, 52.
- Staff exchanges: N. Germany, 2; Mid / Western Ireland, 4; Mazovia, Poland, 5; Andalusia, Spain, 2; Skane, Sweden, 3; South West England, 3; Total, 19.
- Articles produced: N. Germany, 4; Mid / Western Ireland, 3; Mazovia, Poland, 2; Andalusia, Spain, 13; Skane, Sweden, 2; South West England, 5; Total, 29.
- Conference attended: N. Germany, 6; Mid / Western Ireland, 6; Mazovia, Poland, 1; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 3; South West England, 12; Total, 19 (19 unique conferences (some clusters attended the same conference).
- Conference presentations: N. Germany, 4; Mid / Western Ireland, 2; Mazovia, Poland, 0; Andalusia, Spain, 3; Skane, Sweden, 4; South West England, 10; Total, 23.
- Organisations signed up to ROKWOOD Marketplace: N. Germany, 38; Mid / Western Ireland, 14; Mazovia, Poland, 85; Andalusia, Spain, 45; Skane, Sweden, 15; South West England, 45; Total, 287 (counting both partners and non-partners).
Main dissemination and exploitation activities
Website
In order to reach as much audience from our concerned target groups as possible, a website was launched under the domain www.rokwood.eu. The website provides information about the project and it is updated continuously with events, press releases and project promotion material. An online marketplace, that intends to show players active in the wooden biomass sector, has been set up on the website as well. Interested institutions can create an account to be shown on the map and edit their market partner profile. This demonstrates the huge dimension (SMEs, large companies, R&Ds, etc.) behind wooden biomass production and utilisation in Europe and strengthen the outside view of the sector (Figure 25).
10,009 sessions in the website have been held since May 1st, 2013 until November 30th, 2015. It has had 6,9126 users with 35,617 page visits being 61.16% new sessions, and the average visit duration is 00:03:32.
The top 3 countries regarding the website use are Spain, with 1,889 sessions, UK with 1,604 sessions and Germany with 1,590 sessions. It is also remarkable the fact that the website has registered 344 sessions from Brazil and 222 from the US (Figure 26).
One of the most important sections is the marketplace. Up to now, 287 (20 ROKWOOD partners + external) organisations / companies have registered in the marketplace. The top 3 countries regarding registered organisations in the marketplace are Poland (85), Spain (45) and UK (45) (Figure 27).
The Marketplace has been growing together with the website development throughout the project lifetime and it will continue even after the project ends. With this aim, relevant institutions and companies have been addressed and invited to register, and the partners will take advantage of any occasion in which it is possible to engage new stakeholders. Links to the ROKWOOD website have been included the partners’ websites as well.
Social Networks
However, the approach to social media should not be centralised, and the whole ROKWOOD network was highly participative by the members’ use of social networks. An open social media strategy reinforces the idea of ROKWOOD as an open, participative network.
The following social media accounts have been created and are maintained and updated by the project partners on a regularly basis (Figures 28, 29, 30 and 31), offering up to November 30th, 2015 the following results and statistics:
- YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ROKWOODEU where all ROKWOOD videos have been uploaded and accounts a total number of visits of 864.
- ROKWOOD fan page on Facebook, with 92 Likes up to November 30th, 2015: https://www.facebook.com/pages/ROKWOOD/581856995166173.
- ROKWOOD profile on Twitter, with 233 Followers and 656 tweets and retweets up to November 30th, 2015: https://twitter.com/ROKWOODEU.
- LinkedIn Group, with 23 members and 17 open debates up to November 30th, 2015: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/ROKWOOD-5085695?gid=5085695&mostPopular=&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1406734061080%2Ctas%3AROKWOOD%2Cidx%3A1-1-1.
These social media accounts are linked to the ROKWOOD website and vice versa. As social media depends on interaction and content publication, the project partners were informed about the creation of the accounts and were invited to actively participate (by linking their own accounts, sharing contents, etc.).
Activity on social media has a great importance for the impact of the project (e.g. reaching the audience for the regional training workshops and the Final Conference), thus these activities were carried out during the whole project lifetime even though the task was scheduled to be developed during months 1-5 and it is intended to go on disseminating the project results using these social Networks.
Leaflets
Two leaflets were conceived to promote work performed during the project. The first one describes the main features of the project, while the second one contained the first project results and acted as a disseminator of the Final Conference (Figures 32, 33, 34 and 35). 2,500 copies were printed and distributed in order to disseminate the project among interested stakeholders in Brussels.
Banners
In order to make a proper presentation of ROKWOOD in any dissemination event or trade fair, a project poster/pop-up banner was designed and it was completed and customised by each cluster. It contains a very short summary of the current situation of wooden biomass in their corresponding region. The size of the banners is 2000 x 850 mm, banner that each cluster can use for any dissemination event (Figures 36 and 37).
Summaries
A short project summary was created. It is as big as a postcard, includes the most relevant information about ROKWOOD and it is conceived as a tool that invites the readers to learn more about the project and to visit the website to get additional information (Figures 38 and 39). 1000 copies were printed and distributed in order to disseminate the project among interested stakeholders in Brussels.
Video
One of the main dissemination items has been the project video. It was agreed to have 6 videos in 6 different languages (English, German, Spanish, Polish, Swedish (only subtitled upon request of the Swedish cluster) and French) instead of one English video subtitled. In addition, different versions oriented to different audiences (public, farmers and policymakers) were also prepared in all languages mentioned. These videos are shorter versions of the “official” English video, with different interviews and no subtitles, but locution in each of the languages chosen. Therefore, 18 videos were created in total, and it is on the partners’ hands which one should be used in each occasion. An online MEGA Repository was created and filled in with the available material. The partners can have access to them whenever they find it necessary, and they are encouraged to use them in workshops, dissemination events, website, Social Networks, etc (Figures 40, 41, 42 and 43).
The DVDs compiling all of them were also prepared (there are six versions of the DVD, one per language) and distributed. It was also uploaded to the website and also to the ROKWOOD channel in YouTube. Some project partners have also uploaded them to their websites, YouTube channels and other Social Networks (Figures 44, 45, 46 and 47).
Joint publications
This task comprised activities dealing with joint publications related to the project findings in different significant magazines and journals. Different series of articles were prepared presenting the project results and potential impacts of production and use of wooden biomass (Figures 48, 49 and 50 for examples). As a result of this task, the joint publications produced were:
- 10 Scientific Papers – Peer Reviewed Journals Submitted (5 International, 5 National), 5 Published to date.
- 7 Conference Papers and Proceedings.
- 24 Other Publications including 1 Book Chapter and range of articles both published and online.
Final project publication
By the end of the project the ROKWOOD partners produced and published a final project publication: "ROKWOOD – Resource efficient production and utilisation of wooden biomass from SRPs – European Best Practice and Key Findings" (Figure 51). This publication is aimed to be used to disseminate best practice in the addressed sector. ROKWOOD produced 200 copies of the report for distribution to stakeholders. An electronic version is also available on www.rokwood.eu for download.
Final Conference
A Final Conference to discuss the overall results of ROKWOOD was scheduled by the end of the project. This was an opportunity to disseminate the project’s results to a wide audience of the scientific community. The main objective of the conference was to disseminate ROKWOOD results and to initiate further joint initiatives. In order to maximise the impact, it was decided to organise two events:
- A ROKWOOD Workshop in the framework of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition (EBC&E) held in Vienna, Austria on June 3rd, 2015. The event was composed by 2 sub-sessions:
o Opportunities for SRP application.
o Short rotation methods for sustainable biomass supply.
- A special ROKWOOD session and evening reception for policy makers within the Biomass and Energy Crops V Conference in Brussels, Belgium on October 20th, 2015 (Figure 52). The key themes to be treated were:
o Production.
• Agronomy, crop selection, breeding, multifunctionality, land and water use, ecosystem services and impacts.
o Supply Chain and Logistics.
• Storage and drying, processing, development of equipment, transport, densification, temporal and spatial considerations.
o Conversion and Utilisation.
• Feedstock composition and quality, conversion plant performance and emissions, product diversification.
Other dissemination activities:
Other dissemination activities like attendance to dissemination events (conferences, workshops, seminars, etc.), project presentations, articles production, etc. were carried out during the project duration. A summary can be found in section 2.
List of Websites:
Project coordinator:
Mr. Mirko Hänel – Research Director
TTZ Bremerhaven (Water, Energy and Landscape Management).
Address: Fischkai 1, D-27572 Bremerhaven, Germany.
Tel: +49 (0) 471 80 934 501.
Fax: +49 (0) 471 80 934 599.
E-mail: mhaenel@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
Project website address: www.rokwood.eu.
Project consortium:
- TTZ, Christoph Knauer, cknauer@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
- TTZ, Benjamin Küther, bkuether@ttz-bremerhaven.de.
- RPAA, Ralf Winterberg, Ralf.Winterberg@rpg-altmark.de.
- AGRA, Hans-Georg von Engelbrechten, HGvE@agraligna.com.
- MODR, Wojciech Rzewuski, wojciech.rzewuski@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- MODR, Lukasz Cwikla, lukasz.cwikla@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- MODR, Maria Janicka, maria.janicka@modr.mazowsze.pl.
- GZ, Romuald Wozniak, ugzaluski@bip.org.pl.
- GZ, Ilona Szulborska, i.szulborska@zaluski.pl.
- GZ, Lukasz Drzewaszewski, l.drzewaszewski@zaluski.pl.
- EKSPERT, Teresa Janik, t.janik@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- EKSPERT, Jarosław Gopek, jarek.gopek@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- EKSPERT, Magdalena Kiner, m.kiner@ekspert-sitr.pl.
- IFAPA, Víctor Hugo Durán Zuanzo, victorh.duran@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Carlos Parra López, carlos.parra@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Samir Sayadi Gmada, samir.sayadi@juntadeandalucia.es.
- IFAPA, Pablo Almarcha, pablo.almarcha@gmail.com.
- AAPE, Gonzalo Esteban López, areatecnica@apegr.org.
- BIOZ, Pilar Zapata Aranda, pzapata@bioazul.com.
- BIOZ, Ángela Magno Malagón, amagno@bioazul.com.
- BIOZ, Antonia Lorenzo López, alorenzo@bioazul.com.
- ASAJA, Javier Morales Luque, javiermorales-granada@asaja.com.es.
- CSE, Martin Holley, martin.holley@cse.org.uk.
- CSE, Annette Lamley, annette.lamley@cse.org.uk.
- DCC, Pete West, p.west@dorsetcc.gov.uk.
- DCC, Kate Hall, K.M.Hall@dorsetcc.gov.uk.
- C4E, Kevin Lindegaard, kevin@crops4energy.co.uk.
- C4E, Sheena Lindegaard, sheena@crops4energy.co.uk.
- SP, Susanne Paulrud, susanne.paulrud@sp.se.
- SP, Anna Sager, anna.sager@sp.se.
- SEA, Anders Nylander, anders.nylander@kfsk.se.
- SEE, Annika Henriksson, annika.henriksson@salixab.se.
- DIT, Aidan Duffy, aidan.duffy@dit.ie.
- DIT, Patrick Daly, pda@patrickdaly.net.
- WDC, Ian Brannigan, ianbrannigan@wdc.ie.
- WDC, Pauline Leonard, paulineleonard@wdc.ie.
- BL, Briain Smyth, briain@bio-tricity.com.
- BL, Declan Kennedy, declan@bio-tricity.com.
- EUBIA, Valeria Magnolfi, valeria.magnolfi@eubia.org.
- EUBIA, Andrea Salimbeni, andrea.salimbeni@eubia.org.