TS 3 – Technologies for processing This document provides a summary of Thematic Session 3 for the Operational Group meetings held on Monday 10th November 2014 in support of the European Innovation Partnership for Raw Materials. Approximately 25 delegates attended this thematic session meeting on Technologies for Processing, which was moderated by Mr Manuel Gómez Herrero (DG ENTR). Patrice Millet (DG ENTR) and Germán Esteban Muñiz (DG RTD) were the co-moderators. The participants composed members of EIP Operational Group 1 and also representatives of the relevant Raw Materials Commitments (RMCs). The objectives of the meeting were to promote synergies/cooperation and possible clustering of RMCs, to promote synergies/cooperation with related EU initiatives, and to help enlarge the EIP community. A secondary objective was to map the coverage of the SIP by RMCs, and identify possible gaps. Mr Gómez opened the meeting by outlining the target of 10 pilot actions and linking the work in this group to the Priority Area I.B of the SIP. The progress of the EIP was discussed, including the annual conference, related H2020 calls, input in to the review of waste legislation, and framework conditions in mining. He stated that 17 RMCs had been adopted in this area. 14 were presented to the group by representatives; BioALMinore, PolymetOre, INCOMES, Prometia (formerly Europem), EHI, MetNet, MetGrow, AREMON, INBREV, Li-DEP, SX-dev, BRAVO, Mud2Metal, and FerroNi. Commitments and Clustering Overall, it was felt that the RMCs represented a concrete set of examples that the EIP community wanted to take forward. There has also been lots of development since early 2014, when the RMCs were submitted. Nevertheless, there is still a lot to do to achieve the targeted incremental and breakthrough innovations needed in the field. To reach this ambitious goal, the community mentioned the need for visibility, stability and time. Several different types of RMC commitment were submitted (e.g. technical versus non-technical or focussing on one specific material versus a group of materials). Common themes were identified, for example the processing of complex ores, the formation of networks, value chain initiatives and highly focussed projects. Forming a network of expertise was thought to be a useful exercise; however, the precise implementation to ensure the largest impact on the EIP’s targets needed to be agreed. The Commission indicated that it was up to the RMCs themselves to decide to link together, whether within this thematic group or with others. Coverage of Commitments and Alignment with the SIP The group was unsure about the gaps in the RMCs, as no direct comparison with the SIP actions had been made, nor was there a clear understanding of what was already available at a pilot scale within Europe. This analysis may be achieved through one of the pilot plant networking RMCs. This in turn would assist with defining where priorities for development may lie. Much of the discussion focussed on technology gaps, with several identified: processes which integrate different metal processing types, recovery of metals/fine metallic powders and projects that address early stage processing. The concept of “pilot action” was discussed. It was stated that “pilot action” covers a wide range of needed actions and can thus be interpreted in different ways by different sectors. A distinction between two general types of pilot actions was suggested: on the one hand, smaller-scale, versatile and more open "developing" pilots; on the other hand, larger scale "demonstration" pilots, more focused on a specific case. It was also stressed that actions should apply equally to all materials, not just critical raw materials. Expansion of EIP Community The Commission outlined its desire to expand the EIP community, in order to better enable EIP responses and activities, and to achieve critical mass to take actions forward. However, this was primarily linked to greater regional representation, rather than expanding the existing groups. Linking funding was highlighted as a way of encouraging greater involvement. Funding It was reiterated that the EIP is not a funding mechanism; however it could help remove bottlenecks in putting funding in the correct place. The process for this is still to be refined, but alignment between the SIP and on-going and future Horizon 2020 calls (e.g. Societal Challenge 5, SPIRE) is evident. In addition, RMCs can be used as supporting evidence for calls. Some consortia had taken advantage of this and applied for Horizon 2020 funding, whereas others have taken these forward themselves.