The text on this page was automatically translated and hence may differ from the original. No rights can be derived from this translation.
Over the past decade, Dutch innovation policy has seen a shift in focus from economic earning capacity towards achieving societal goals and missions. Some of these missions concern the Dutch energy system. To achieve these missions and previous goals, various schemes have been established. Dialogic, together with SEO, was commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate to evaluate four of these schemes in the recent period: the schemes of the Top Sector Energy, Renewable Energy Transition (HER+), Demonstration of Energy and Climate Innovation (DEI+), and Mission-Driven Research, Development, and Innovation (MOOI) schemes. Together, these schemes make up the Energy Innovation schemes (EI). By examining a broad evaluation period (2012-2021), a thorough assessment was made of the extent to which these schemes have contributed to the objectives of the (earlier) Energy Accord, Climate Accord, and Mission-Driven Top Sectors and Innovation Policy.
We have concluded that the EI schemes have resulted in projects in which energy innovations progress through the innovation chain more quickly. Thus, they are effective at the output and outcome levels. Additionally, the schemes have contributed to strengthening the innovation system: they have led to a wide range of consortia capable of advancing energy innovations, with more actors participating in a greater number of projects, leading to an increase in network size.
When it comes to the schemes' contribution to climate goals, it is not yet possible to draw quantitative conclusions. Innovation requires a long-term perspective, and the goals are set for 2030 and 2050. However, the evaluation shows that projects resulting from the EI schemes align well with climate goals. It does emerge that setting requirements concerning contributions by 2030 in the schemes makes it more challenging for consortia to fit within the schemes, which may reduce their inclination to apply for them.
The implementation of the schemes by RVO is efficiently structured, but the coherence between the schemes is less clear: this is not clearly defined in a policy document, and the schemes do not seamlessly align in terms of conditions, for example, regarding whether or not to subsidise knowledge sharing. Therefore, the evaluation calls for a broader discussion on linking instruments to achieve the set missions. In the evaluation, five models have been proposed (see image below):
- Specific-purpose schemes
- Streamlined model
- Layered model
- Partially integrated model
- Fully integrated model
The evaluation also analysed the development of the schemes over the period, describing the shift in focus from economic earning capacity to societal goals and missions. This has resulted in five recommendations for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate:
- Consider the extent to which flexibility can be created in traversing the entire TRL chain in mission-driven innovation policy.
- Ensure that the overarching objective of the EI framework is more clearly reflected in policy documentation, and that the coherence between the different schemes is more clearly defined.
- Consider a more flexible condition than contributing to CO2 reduction by 2030 (in the case of HER+).
- Include costs for knowledge sharing and project management where possible in the eligible costs of the schemes.
- Ensure identifiable (potential) knowledge networks throughout the execution of the schemes, in which the various consortia and parties working together on a theme can connect.
For further clarification on these topics, the entire evaluation report is attached to this page. The policy response can be read on this page.
[Image description: An image showing five proposed models as part of the evaluation analysis, named: Specific-purpose schemes, Streamlined model, Layered model, Partially integrated model, Fully integrated model.]
