Critical success factors John Neeft Coordinator BioGrace-II

1. Critical success factorsJohn NeeftCoordinator BioGrace-II John Neeft NL Agency BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

2. Contents • Introduction • Risk assessment from negotiations • Discussion BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

3. Introduction • One of the tasks in WP1 is “Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the progress including risk management” • Risk management to be performed every meeting • As Emilio is present today (and not tomorrow) we’ll cover this today • Question for next hour: • What are the critical success factors for the project to be successful?Other words: “what do we need to be successful not lying in our own hands?” • What are risks where the project could fail? BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

4. Contents • Introduction • Risk assessment from negotiations • Discussion BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

5. Risk assessment from negotiations 1. Possible risk: Delays in publication of EC rapport on sustainability of solid biomass (external) • Significance is large, as our work will build on this report. • Probability is low that the report will come later than March 2012, as EC policy makers indicate that the report should be published shortly before or shortly after Christmas 2011. • Proposed mitigation/management measures: If the report comes late, the consortium partners will retard discussions on methodology but however start the project by making a template for the Excel sheet (Task 3.1) and by contacting policy makers (Task 4.1). Work Package 2 (methodology) will need to be re-planned when the size of the delay has become clear. BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

6. Risk assessment from negotiations 2. Possible risk:Methodological discussions turn out to be very complicated due to conflicting interests within the consortium (internal) • Significance is large, as we need to conclude on a methodology. • Probability is fair that this might happen to some extend • Proposed mitigation/management measures: The BioGrace project partners will limit this risk by: • Taking the methodology of COM(2010)11 as a starting point; • Starting the BioGrace-II project identifying which methodological points should be re-assessed, and also why (including writing a clear communication on why this must be done); • Having three project meetings in the first 10 months of the project and then finalise the discussions on methodology within the first year of the project. (text taken from proposal Part B, WP2) BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

7. Risk assessment from negotiations 3. Possible risk:Policy makers are not willing to discuss the BioGrace tool (external) • Significance is large, as the major aim of the project is to have the tool accepted as part of regulations. • Probability is small as policy makers showed large interest during the project proposal stage (see also the letters of support) and have committed to the project. • Proposed mitigation/management measures: Increase efforts to regain interest of policy makers. BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

8. Risk assessment from negotiations 4. Possible risk: Policy makers / member states are not willing to commit to the final result (external) • Significance is large, as the major aim of the project is to have the tool accepted as part of regulations. • Probability is moderate – our current experience with harmonised implementation of parts of the RED is that member states tend to have the implementation debate nationally, without looking too much to the larger European bioenergy market. BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

9. Risk assessment from negotiations 4. Possible risk: Policy makers / member states are not willing to commit to the final result (external) • Proposed mitigation/management measures: The first measure to mitigate this risk is to reach agreement with a more limited number of member states (not including the ones that are not willing to commit). In parallel, a delegation of BioGrace-II (possibly joined by one or two policy makers from the countries that are committing) will meet with the policy maker(s) in question and repeat the rationale to come to a harmonised GHG calculation. A second measure will be to have industry plead for harmonised calculations to the policy maker(s) not wiling to commit. AEBIOM and EUROPIA are likely to do so when harmonised introduction of GHG calculations (and more general harmonised introduction of biomass sustainability criteria) is at risk. BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

10. Contents • Introduction • Risk assessment from negotiations • Discussion BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

11. Risk assessment from negotiations Risks identified: • Delays in publication of EC rapport on sustainability of solid biomass (external) • Methodological discussions turn out to be very complicated due to conflicting interests within the consortium (internal) • Policy makers are not willing to discuss the BioGrace tool (external) • Policy makers / member states are not willing to commit to the final result (external) Any other risks? BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012

12. Thank you for your attention The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. BioGrace-II Kick-off meeting Brussels, 14 and 15 May, 2012