Conclusions and further thoughts on changes within ESTEP as preparation for the broader discussion within ESTEP

Transcription

1 European Steel Technology Platform Avenue de Cortenbergh, 172 B-1000 Brussels Belgium T +32 (2) F+32 (2) klaus.peters@estep.eu Klaus Peters, SG ESTEP Sep. 29 th 2015 Conclusions and further thoughts on changes within ESTEP as preparation for the broader discussion within ESTEP 1. All ESTEP meetings start with a compliance statement. ESTEP will use the EUROFER material. Signing the attendance list confirms the participant s knowledge of the compliance statement. 2. ESTEP is research focused. The main outcome is communication (Do we have one European Steel voice?, Has to be in line with other steel voices: EUROFER, Worldsteel) by road mapping, foresight and contribution to other papers (e.g. consultations, steering/discussion bodies of the EC et al.). Many topics of ESTEP address more than one WG, so that the communication between the WGs is very important. 3. As long as ESTEP is no legal entity ESTEP cannot participate by itself to projects. However, this is not a problem or a barrier for R&D projects. 4. ESTEP is one of the few by the EC recognized European technology platform and this gives benefits (direct own liaison with the Commission) but also obligations to take into account the interests of all European steel stakeholders and to involve as many as possible stakeholders (amongst others organise stakeholder events). One of the tasks is to attract more members to ESTEP: Universities, value chain, NGOs 1, North Europe, East Europe (?).. 5. The objective of ESTEP is to continuously improve the image of the steel sector in regard to European Community, which are the European policy makers as well as the European citizens. In 2015 the image of the material steel is quite good; however the image of the industry producing steel needs improvement. 2 Especially the producers using carbon (BFroute). 6. From 2015 onward first ESTEP has to decide on mainstream topics and how and when to implement these. This could be done by creating consortia and ask for public funding, but also with showcase projects without public funding. Important is that private commitment should be clear up front (lesson from success of SUSCHEM). a. The document showing the topics is ESTEP s Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), generated in 2006 and updated in Open minded NGOs can contribute to communicate positively about steel. NGO in ESTEP is possible. From time to time ESTEP (SG) can ask NGO to give a presentation to ESTEP community (not to SAG). 2 Communicate especially on steel products and their contribution to CO2 reduction. With steel there are many opportunities for better solutions in many segments. Almost everything can be constructed/manufactured in a better way (see automotive). How about communicating such success stories also in other product segments e.g. construction?

2 b. In the time 2010 to 2013 ESTEP followed successfully the objective to join forces with other sectors (amongst others energy intensive industries) to get better access to other funding in Europe than RFCS, which is framework program (FoF, E2B, ). The positive result is the position of the steel sector in the SPIRE PPP and many funded SPIRE projects are already running with partners from the steel sector. When working hard to gain access to FP funding, to some extend having a funded project was high priority, so that the topic was somehow second priority. Now in 2015 it is time to put the decision on topics back in first place. c. In the next support group meeting (Oct. 6 th 2015) ESTEP will focus on part 4 of the SRA, which shows the implementation roadmap. The WG chairs will be asked to comment on each theme and show progress in implementing their part (not relevant for the WG, no work on the topic, xxx work with yyy achievements). Furthermore all WG chairs are welcomed to propose adding new topics to the SRA, which have to be approved by the support group and finally by the steering committee. New ideas should be accompanied with an initial list of participants willing to invest in the development up front. d. The booklet format of the SRA will change to a flexible folder type approach, so that any update can easily be made. In 2017 the next SRA booklet will be published. e. Candidates for ESTEP mainstream topics to be extended, discussed and prioritized 3 i. Integration into manufacturing and value chain (If Europe had no steel production but all the rest, how would we invent/set-up the steel production today, in 2050?) ii. New/optimized added value Products iii. Increase productivity and profitability of steel producers (EBITDA 7% >14%?!) iv. New efficient processes 4 v. New added value services vi. CO 2 utilisation vii. REACH viii. Substitution of scarce raw materials ix. Use of low quality materials x. Smart Industry / industry 4.0 xi. Step change Technologies 7. The process of optimizing the (organizational) structure of ESTEP has started and it is the intention to present a proposal for approval at the meeting of the steering committee in March Such a proposal can include the following elements. a. The support group has to become a management body again, balancing and coordinating the inputs of the WGs. To achieve this: 3 The topics are embedded in the SRA of ESTEP 4 Main driver for improvements are the equipment suppliers (technology providers). But they only develop new technologies if there is a business plan. So the key question is How many new installations will come?. The topic is very broad. In RFCS there are several TG along the steel production route. TGS1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 2

3 i. The agenda and the topic on the agenda of the support group should be changed with more focus on discussion then progress review ii. Representatives of the management of the R&D organizations should be encouraged and deputizing discouraged. iii. The WG chairs to follow a reporting template (members <active, responding, on distribution list>, WG roadmap as part of the SRA status/comments, decisions) to avoid duplication across WGs. b. Improved and coordinated ESTEP involvement in European Bodies. The least ESTEP has to do is being transparent in its members activities. A new approach to foster implementation could be to appoint Program Experts (PE) who act across WGs. For each relevant European Activity (PPP and alike) an ESTEP member could be appointed as PE (program expert), covering the fields as: * Funding schemes * Company initiatives (private funding). The idea is to use official information, which is publicly available. Often the steel industry is not selling well its improvements and activities. * Communications (external) 5 * Legal (not in ESTEP). So far AM is supporting the discussions about RFCS in regard to legal aspects. Neither ESTEP nor EUROFER have a legal expert. The driver for the discussion with the commission about RFCS is EUROFER Refocus. * Foresight => expectation/need/lobbying for future funding directions e.g. Horizon 2030 is covered by the PE. The decision to introduce PE needs to be done. Some ESTEP members will have extra work. How is the support of this extra work by the top management of the steel producers and RTOs. * WG1 WG2 WG3 WGn Programme Experts The PE has to ensure the communication on this program and to ensure that ESTEP is present at the program s events. He will have the support of all ESTEP WGs, which is not only his WG. A PE is not exclusively in charge of a field. Several other members of ESTEP will also work and contribute to the field. The PE approach will also be discussed with the European Commission. 5 Share resources with EUROFER!? Assign resources from EUROFER to ESTEP. 3

4 Action: To start with at the next Support Group meeting of 6 October, the WG chairs will be asked to provide information about the WG members activities in PPPs and alike. c. Possible changes to the WG structure. It is the intention to have a meeting in January 2016 with the WG chairs to discuss the WG structure. How many WG does ESTEP need? Which one? How to address the priorities of ESTEP by the Working Groups (especially in regard to Markets & Megatrends) People HR & Aging Planet Environment & Sustainability Profit Technology & Processes (including I2M, Industry 4.0?) Partner=> Markets & Megatrends * Transport & Mobility * Construction & Urbanisation * Energy & Renewables * Raw materials & Circular Economy (zero waste) * d. Once ESTEP has decided on the mainstream themes (prioritization), a roadmap 6 (objective, timeline, deliverables, KPI, ) has to be drafted and added to ESTEP s SRA. ESTEP support group should coordinate and provide guidance which WGs should address mainstream themes as well as decide which WG will be the lead of the mainstream the theme. In order to implement the roadmaps ESTEP can apply for public funding but company support should be secured first to show private commitment. e. Interfaces of ESTEP i. The steel producers are providing money to EUROFER. They have within EUROFER Research Committee their own discussion platform to prepare industrial positioning and direction setting for the ESTEP meetings. EUROFER Research Committee seems duplication with ESTEP activities but is not. ESTEP is a dialogue between all stakeholders in the steel sector including the European Commission. EUROFER Research Committee is restricted to industry only. ii. The ETP liaison from the Commission (DG RTD unit for coal and steel) is very important to ESTEP and vice versa. The participation of the Commission representatives in ESTEP activities is essential. The meeting schedule of the support group will be among the first on the agenda of the support group so that Commission representative(s) can directly comment on the date of the next support group meeting. 6 An even more formal approach is to create a chapter. 4

5 The liaison with the EC needs improvement. ESTEP needs close relationship also with other DG than RTD and their contributions to ESTEP Members of ESTEP shall agree to include a link to ESTEP s SRA and ESTEP s WGs in each proposal (similar to but even stronger than RFCS priority point). There is no immediate benefit to the proposal itself. However, the more ESTEP is visible in the proposals and its members contribute to projects showing the link to ESTEP the sooner the evaluators can see such statements as added value to the proposal Dissemination a. The broad approach of ESTEP s stakeholders and thus its members should be part of the projects dissemination. b. ESTEP s WG are more than encouraged to submit project proposals for the dissemination of research results. Such dissemination should cover several projects (broad approach). The WGs of ESTEP could set up an event with about 50 people, each of them presenting his work. 7 ESTEP can contact Soren Bowadt. 8 How is the status of writing supporting letters with signature of ESTEP? 5