Latest News

Lessons learnt from the first wider stakeholder process

      | More

HYDROPOWER EUROPE Consultation Expert Panel gathered feedback received from the first wider stakeholder process in order to provide the recommendations concern the Research and Innovation Agenda (RIA) and Strategic Industry Roadmap (SIR). The first wider stakeholder process included the online consultation and the three regional workshops which were held during summer and autumn 2019.

The first expert recommendations after the first expert workshop in March 2019 on the initial structure of the RIA and SIR together with the current status of hydropower technology are summarized in the HYDROPOWER EUROPE report WP3-DlRp-20.

Following the three regional workshops (see HPE Report WP2-DlRp-22), the CEP determined a first categorization of the topics to help in preparing the first draft of the RIA and SIR. For this, key actions include:

− Collecting and pooling the topics for the preparation of the CEP consultation,

− Organising and analysing the CEP feedback.

What is the purpose of the Consultation Expert Panel?

The Consultation Expert Panel (CEP) consists of 34 representatives of the whole hydropower community with a wide range of technical, economic, environmental, legal and social knowledge. The focus of the CEP is, on the one hand, to evaluate the structure and content of the Research and Innovation Agenda (RIA) and Strategic Industry Roadmap (SIR) regarding their application in a consulting process with all stakeholders and on the other hand to analyse and advise on prioritising the comprehensive information based on the overall consultation processes.

CEP recommendations based on the 1st wider stakeholder consultation process

Out of the 34 members of the CEP, six experts commented on the analysis report. A lot of comments included general remarks and comments as well as proposals for topic merging. Additionally, some experts attached supporting documents.

It was noted that for the R&I topics, in general, the budgets and timeframes indicated by the stakeholders show a very widespread. The possibility that the associated R&I activities which the individual stakeholders had in mind were very different was seen as one reason for this issue. However, generally, the respective budget and time frames looked quite realistic.

Considering the statements from the individual working groups of the regional workshops, and particularly for the SWOT analyses, some statements were seen as partly contradictory. For example, some statements are mentioned both in the weaknesses and at the same time in the strengths. Nevertheless, depending on the point of view or perspective a weakness can become a strength.

The final report will be available on the website under the Participant Area.

Back to Latest News

Latest News