The Horizon Europe CRM-geothermal project: Deliverable 6.5 – Educational Plan

CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE D6.5 EDUCATIONAL PLAN Summary: This deliverable outlines how CRM-geothermal results can be exploited through education at secondary school and university levels. It assesses current practices, identifies gaps, and proposes recommendations for curricula, teaching methods, and partnerships, with a focus on geothermal energy and critical raw materials. Authors: Pavlos Tyrologou, Consultant of the EFG’s Research Projects and Development Unit Vitor Correia, Head of the EFG’s Research Projects and Development Unit Eva Hartai, EFG Consultant CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 2 / 51 Title: Educational Plan Lead beneficiary: European Federation of Geologists Other beneficiaries: INTRAW, GFZ Due date: 31 October 2025 Nature: Public Diffusion: All Partners, all Affiliated Entities Status: Working Document DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.17497442 License information: CC-BY-4.0 Recommended Citation: Tyrologou, P., Correia, V., & Éva, H. (2025). The Horizon Europe CRM-geothermal project: Deliverable 6.5 – Educational Plan (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17497442 ORCID: Pavlos Tyrologou 0000-0001-7706-1774 Éva Hartai 0009-0006-5890-7926 Vitor Correia 0000-0002-5066-4601 Document code: CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Revision history Author Delivery date Summary of changes and comments Version 0.1 Pavlos Tyrologou 10.10.2025 First version Version 1.0 Pavlos Tyrologou 27.10.2025 Minor corrections according to the comments by the consortium members Name Function Date Deliverable responsible Pavlos Tyrologou Consultant 27 Oct 2025 WP leader Anita Stein Executive Director 30 Oct 2025 Project Coordinator Katrin Kieling Project manager 31 Oct 2025 Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or HADEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 3 / 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 4 List of tables ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Objectives and scope ............................................................................................................. 7 3 Geoscience education at secondary school level ........................................................................... 8 3.1 Current status in europe ........................................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 Survey by the EFG’s Panel of Experts on Education ...................................................... 8 3.1.2 Survey by IGEO .............................................................................................................. 8 3.1.3 Surveys by UNESCO and IGEO ....................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Survey by the ENGIE project ....................................................................................... 10 3.2 Interest of secondary school students in geoscience .......................................................... 11 3.3 Best practices in teaching geoscience ................................................................................. 12 3.3.1 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................ 12 3.3.2 Effective pedagogical approaches and methods ........................................................ 13 3.3.3 Case studies and projects in Europe ........................................................................... 16 3.3.4 Main challenges to follow best practices .................................................................... 18 4 Assessment of the CRM-geothermal Video Contest .................................................................... 21 5 Recommendations for secondary schools .................................................................................... 24 5.1 Curricular Integration ........................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Teaching approaches and pedagogical innovation .............................................................. 25 5.3 Teacher training and resources ........................................................................................... 26 5.4 Student engagement and awareness-raising ...................................................................... 26 5.5 Partnerships and networks .................................................................................................. 27 5.6 Summary and outlook .......................................................................................................... 27 6 University education related to raw materials and geothermal energy ...................................... 28 6.1 Raw-materials higher education in Europe ......................................................................... 29 6.1.1 Overview of the landscape .......................................................................................... 29 6.1.2 Gaps and challenges .................................................................................................... 30 6.1.3 Policy context and institutional drivers ....................................................................... 31 6.1.4 Implications for CRM-geothermal ............................................................................... 31 6.2 Geothermal higher education in Europe ............................................................................. 32 6.2.1 Overview of the landscape .......................................................................................... 32 6.2.2 Strengths of Current Programmes .............................................................................. 34 6.2.3 Integration of Sustainability and Policy Context ......................................................... 34 6.2.4 Gaps and challenges .................................................................................................... 34 6.2.5 Implications for CRM-geothermal ............................................................................... 35 7 Recommendations for universities ............................................................................................... 35 7.1 Curriculum Integration and modernisation ......................................................................... 37 7.2 Development of new modules and courses ........................................................................ 38 7.3 Interdisciplinary programmes and joint degrees ................................................................. 39 7.4 Experiential and applied learning ........................................................................................ 39 7.5 Alignment with EU policy priorities ..................................................................................... 40 7.6 Roadmap forimplementation .............................................................................................. 41 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 43 9 References .................................................................................................................................... 44 10 ANNEX 1: Universities in Europe with relevant geoscience and raw material teaching content 49 CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 4 / 51 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Teacher backgrounds in geoscience education at secondary school level (based on EFG’s 2015 survey). .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Student interest in different geoscience topics (based on findings from the GEOschools and ENGIE surveys). ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Effective pedagogical approaches and methods in geoscience education ............................ 13 Figure 4: Video submissions against schools contacted per country, bars show the number of video submissions per country, red line with dots indicates how many schools were contacted in that country. ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 5: Social media impact of CRM-Geothermal Video Contest. ..................................................... 22 Figure 6: Age distribution of participants. ............................................................................................. 23 Figure 7: Schematic framework summarising the five recommendation areas for secondary schools: ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 8: From current strengths to CRM-geothermal implications in raw materials higher education ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 9: From current strengths to CRM-geothermal implications in geothermal higher education . 35 Figure 10: Framework for the recommendations for universities ........................................................ 36 Figure 11: Thematic priorities for new modules and courses ............................................................... 38 Figure 12: Roadmap for implementing CRM-geothermal recommendations in universities ............... 41 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Overview of international surveys on geoscience education in European secondary schools10 Table 2: Examples of best practices in geoscience teaching in European secondary schools .............. 17 Table 3: Challenges and barriers in teaching geoscience at secondary school level ............................ 19 Table 4: Recommendations for strengthening geoscience education in European secondary schools 24 Table 5: Selected European university programmes related to raw materials ..................................... 30 Table 6: Selected European university programmes related to geothermal energy ............................ 33 Table 7: Summary of recommendations for universities for embedding the CRM-geothermal knowledge into the higher education ................................................................................................... 37 CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 5 / 51 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This deliverable has been developed within Task 6.5 Ensure exploitation of project results of the CRMgeothermal project. Its objective is to complement the project’s exploitation strategy by providing guidance for integrating geothermal energy and critical raw materials (CRM) into education at both secondary school and university levels. By strengthening geoscience education, this Educational Plan aims to increase awareness among young people, inspire future professionals, and secure a skilled workforce able to advance Europe’s twin transition under the Green Deal. The report first assesses the status of geoscience education in European secondary schools. Although Earth sciences are critical for understanding resource management, climate change, and sustainable energy, they are often marginalised in curricula and taught by non-specialist teachers. Student interest is high when topics connect to real-world challenges such as natural hazards or sustainability, but limited teaching resources and training opportunities remain key barriers. The CRM-geothermal video contest, organised for students aged 12–18, demonstrated that interactive formats can effectively raise interest in geoscience. Participation patterns showed stronger engagement among older teenagers and female students, while social media dissemination highlighted the need for tailored outreach strategies. Lessons from the contest provide useful directions for future engagement activities in schools. Based on these assessments, the plan formulates recommendations for secondary schools: to integrate geoscience more explicitly into curricula, promote inquiry-based and experiential learning (fieldwork, virtual field trips, gamification), provide targeted teacher training, and develop ready-touse materials linked to energy transition and raw materials. At the university level, a review of European programmes reveals strong foundations in geology, mining, and environmental engineering, but limited integration of geothermal-CRM co-production concepts. The plan therefore recommends updating curricula to include new modules on sustainable raw materials derived from geothermal fluids, ESG (environmental, social, and governance) principles, and social licence to operate, as well as digital tools such as the CRM Fluid Atlas, and interdisciplinary programmes linking geoscience, engineering, policy, and economics. A roadmap is proposed for gradual implementation, from short-term elective courses to long-term dedicated degree programmes. In conclusion, this Educational Plan supports the CRM-geothermal exploitation strategy by bridging research, education, and skills development. By equipping secondary school students with awareness and university students with specialised knowledge, the project contributes to building a new generation of professionals able to deliver sustainable supplies of raw materials and renewable energy for Europe’s future. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 6 / 51 2 INTRODUCTION Education is a cornerstone for ensuring the long-term impact and exploitation of CRM-geothermal project results. By integrating knowledge of geothermal energy and critical raw materials (CRMs) into school and university curricula, the project can inspire future generations, foster societal awareness, and prepare a skilled workforce capable of delivering sustainable resource management and energy solutions. This Educational Plan therefore complements the project’s exploitation strategy by identifying current gaps in geoscience education, analysing engagement outcomes from the video contest, and providing recommendations for both secondary schools and universities. The plan has three overarching goals: − To strengthen the visibility of geoscience in education, with particular emphasis on geothermal energy and CRM supply. − To translate CRM-geothermal project results into practical tools and recommendations for teachers and educators. − To support Europe’s strategic objectives under the Green Deal 1 , Critical Raw Materials Act 2 , and Sustainable Development Goals 3 by preparing the next generation of professionals. In line with Task 6.5 Ensure exploitation of project results, the plan addresses both the public education sector and higher education institutions. It builds on surveys and international studies on geoscience education, lessons learned from the CRM-geothermal video contest, and mapping of relevant university programmes in Europe. 2.1 BACKGROUND The European Green Deal, the digital transition, and the energy transition depend on secure and sustainable access to critical raw materials. At the same time, public resistance to new mining projects in Europe highlights the importance of alternative and socially acceptable approaches to raw material supply. CRM-geothermal proposes the combined production of renewable geothermal energy and CRMs from subsurface fluids, thereby minimising land use, environmental impact, and societal opposition. To ensure the uptake and long-term sustainability of this innovative approach, education plays a decisive role. Awareness at the secondary school level supports early interest in geosciences, resource awareness, and climate action, while updated university curricula ensure that students are educated in the interdisciplinary skills needed for future CRM-geothermal developments. Embedding project results in education therefore contributes directly to the exploitation strategy by: − Building societal trust and acceptance for geothermal-CRM projects. − Expanding the talent pipeline for industry, academia, and policy. − Ensuring knowledge transfer from research into practice and policy. − Positioning Europe as a global leader in sustainable raw materials and geothermal technologies. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 2 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-rawmaterials/critical-raw-materials-act_en 3 https://sdgs.un.org/goals CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 7 / 51 2.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The overarching purpose of this Educational Plan is to ensure that the results of the CRM-geothermal project are effectively exploited through education, reaching both young learners in secondary schools and students at university level. Education is a critical enabler for long-term impact: it raises awareness of the importance of geothermal energy and critical raw materials, inspires future professionals, and ensures that Europe has the skilled workforce needed for the twin green and digital transitions. More specifically, the plan has five interlinked objectives that define its scope. The first is to assess the status of geoscience education in European secondary schools, with an emphasis on how topics related to geothermal energy and raw materials are currently integrated into curricula. This assessment draws on recent surveys and studies conducted by organisations such as EFG, IGEO, UNESCO, and the ENGIE project, as well as examples of good practice from across Europe. The second objective is to evaluate the results of the CRM-geothermal video contest. By analysing participation rates, demographic profiles, and dissemination outcomes, the report identifies which approaches are most effective in sparking student interest and engagement. The insights from this case study provide concrete lessons for future outreach activities. Building on these findings, the plan aims thirdly to formulate recommendations for secondary schools. These recommendations are intended to support teachers and education policymakers by offering practical guidance on how to bring geoscience, sustainability, and raw materials into the classroom. Suggestions include integrating geothermal and CRM content into science subjects, using experiential and inquiry-based teaching methods, and developing accessible learning resources. At the higher education level, the plan’s fourth objective is to map and evaluate existing university programmes in geology, mining, raw materials, and geothermal energy. This overview highlights both existing strengths and current gaps, particularly the limited presence of interdisciplinary approaches that combine renewable energy production with raw material recovery. Finally, the plan seeks to provide recommendations for universities to update their curricula. This includes the introduction of new modules on geothermal-CRM co-production, sustainability and ESG (environmental, social, governance) frameworks, geoethics, and digital tools such as the CRMgeothermal Fluid Atlas. A phased roadmap is proposed: short-term elective modules, medium-term joint Master’s programmes, and long-term interdisciplinary degrees that fully align with Europe’s policy priorities, including the Green Deal, the Critical Raw Materials Act, and the Sustainable Development Goals. To summarise, the scope of this report is broad yet focused. It covers both secondary and tertiary education, combines assessment with practical recommendations, and connects teaching with the strategic needs of Europe’s future energy and raw material systems. Its ultimate goal is to ensure that CRM-geothermal knowledge is not only disseminated, but embedded in Europe’s education landscape, thereby contributing to societal awareness, professional training, and sustainable resource management for decades to come. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 8 / 51 3 GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION AT SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL Geoscience, or Earth science, is a general term that relates various disciplines for the study of the Earth-ecosystem. Understanding the earth’s mechanisms is essential for sustaining life on our planet, as geoscience plays a critical role in managing our primary resources: energy, minerals, water, and food. While the term "geoscience" is often used interchangeably with "geology," the latter is more specific to foundational and precise study of the Earth compared with the larger encompassing term of geoscience. Despite its significance for life on Earth, geoscience is generally not taught as a standalone subject at the secondary school level in Europe. Instead, geological concepts are integrated into broader subjects such as Geography, Physics, Chemistry, or General Science. The extent to which geology is emphasised within these subjects varies considerably across European countries, reflecting differences in national curricula, educational policies, and cultural priorities. 3.1 CURRENT STATUS IN EUROPE Several organisations have warned that most secondary school curricula do not include a substantial geology component. Inadequate geological knowledge affects not only university students but also the citizens who finish their secondary studies without having learned any basic geological concepts. Earth sciences play a key role in developing higher-order thinking skills, helping learners overcome cognitive barriers to spatial and temporal thinking, retrospection, and understanding complex phenomena. It fosters integration across disciplines and nurtures systems thinking. Earth sciences equip citizens to make informed decisions about energy, water, and resource conservation. Those who understand Earth's processes are better positioned to act scientifically and responsibly. In the following, the status of earth science education in Europe is discussed based on the results of different representative surveys. 3.1.1 Survey by the EFG Panel of Experts on Education In 2015, the EFG Panel of Experts on Education conducted a survey on geology education within public schools across 11 European countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, UK and Ukraine) (Hartai, 2016). In these countries, geology is incorporated into the compulsory curriculum, primarily within the subjects of Natural Sciences and Geography. It is mostly taught by geography teachers or general science teachers (Figure 1), and the age of students learning geology typically ranges from 11 to 16 years. It is concluded that generally, suitable teaching materials are scarce, consisting mostly of textbooks, worksheets, or digital educational content. Optional geology-related courses are offered only in a limited number of schools. Assessments of students' geological knowledge are rare and usually restricted to local information. Geology outreach programmes are mainly provided by professional organisations. 3.1.2 Survey by IGEO In 2015-16, the International Geoscience Education Organisation (IGEO) conducted a survey in 27 countries worldwide on the global perspectives of Earth science education. The European Union was represented by eight countries in the survey: Austria, Bulgaria, England, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain. Results of the survey are summarised by Greco & Almberg (2018). CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 9 / 51 Figure 1: Teacher backgrounds in geoscience education at secondary school level (based on EFG’s 2015 survey). In most of the listed European countries, geology is taught as a part of physical geography. In Austria, ‘Geography’ was changed to ‘Geography and Economic Studies’ which highly reduced the allocation for physical geography. However, major geoscientific content is embedded in the Austrian biology curriculum. In Bulgaria, before 1965, geology was a stand-alone subject but now it is included in geography. In England, geology is part of the English National Geography Curriculum, compulsory for 5–14-years old students. Optional geology examination courses are available to some students aged 14-18. In France and Italy, school systems attempt to direct interest towards geosciences, but the turn towards a more investigative approach or problem-based learning, with adequate laboratory supports, still needs time. In Germany, there is a high diversity of curricula due to the German federalism and the early separation of students into different types of schools. Earth science content is mostly taught within geography. Some schools offer Earth sciences as electives or optional working groups. In Spain, geology is included in the broader “Natural Science” subject, and forms a very limited part of the curricula. In Portugal, teaching Earth sciences in basic and secondary education in Portugal has a long tradition. In the lower classes, Earth sciences is taught in the frame of Environmental Studies. In the 2nd Cycle education Earth science is included in Natural Sciences. The discipline of Natural Sciences, in the 7th grade, is entirely dedicated to Earth Sciences. 3.1.3 Surveys by UNESCO and IGEO UNESCO and IGEO conducted four worldwide surveys on geoscience education between 2000 and 2017 (King et al., 2021). The most recent survey collected data from 51 countries, representing more than half of the world's population. The findings revealed that while most countries (75%) had established national standards related to Earth sciences, these standards were either not followed or were entirely absent in more than half of the surveyed countries. Furthermore, only about 25% of the countries with standardized assessments included Earth science-specific questions. Most Earth science teachers are non-specialists, and the support provided to them through courses and professional development is generally insufficient. The quality of Earth science teaching materials CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 16 / 51 promoted self-regulation and motivation. Similarly, Correia and Harrison (2020) found that teachers' beliefs about inquiry-based learning significantly influenced their formative assessment practices, impacting students' autonomy and engagement in science lessons. European research initiatives have piloted innovative tools to evaluate IBL, emphasizing the integration of formative assessment into classroom practices. Grob et al. (2015) highlighted the use of structured formative assessment methods, including rubrics and digital portfolios, to support students' competencies in inquiry-based science education. These tools have been instrumental in providing continuous feedback, fostering students' critical thinking, and enhancing their ability to apply geoscientific knowledge in real-world contexts. 3.3.3 Case studies and projects in Europe The GEOschools project, supported by the EU Comenius Programme, aimed to enhance geoscience education across European secondary schools by developing innovative teaching resources and promoting interdisciplinary learning. Initiated in 2010, the project brought together geoscientists, educators, and institutions from countries including Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Austria to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and school curricula (GEOschools, n.d.). A central outcome of GEOschools was the establishment of a “Framework on Geosciences Literacy Principles,” designed to harmonize geoscience education while respecting local geological contexts (Rodrigues et al., 2013b). This framework informed the creation of five educational modules, emphasising fieldbased learning in geoparks and geosites. Additionally, GEOschools developed multilingual glossaries of geological terms to support students’ comprehension and facilitate the integration of geoscience topics into various subjects (GEOschools, n.d.). The project also emphasised teacher training, providing resources and workshops to enhance educators’ ability to deliver geoscience content effectively. Earth Learning Idea (ELI) is a global geoscience education initiative that offers a comprehensive collection of free, multilingual teaching activities designed to make Earth science accessible and engaging, particularly in resource-limited educational settings. Since its inception in 2007, ELI has expanded its repository to over 450 activities, many accompanied by teaching videos and extension ideas, all freely downloadable from its website. These activities emphasisze inquiry-based learning and critical thinking, often requiring only simple materials, making them adaptable for diverse classroom environments. ELI's resources are translated into multiple languages, including Spanish, German, Portuguese, Polish, Slovak, and Chinese, facilitating their integration into various national curricula and promoting global reach. The initiative also incorporates the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) approach, providing professional development workshops and teaching videos to enhance educators' pedagogical skills. With over 7 million downloads worldwide, ELI has become a valuable tool for educators aiming to foster a deeper understanding of Earth sciences among students (Earth Learning Idea). The European Geoparks Network (EGN) plays a crucial role in Earth Science education by providing unique learning opportunities and promoting the appreciation of geological heritage. Geoparks act as outdoor classrooms, offering hands-on experiences, field trips, and educational resources for all age groups. They integrate geological knowledge with cultural and historical contexts, fostering a holistic understanding of the Earth and its environment. The number of geoparks is continuously increasing. The European Geoparks Network (EGN), an integral component of UNESCO's Global Geoparks initiative, has significantly advanced geoscience education since 2020 by intertwining geological heritage with sustainable development and community engagement. These geoparks serve as dynamic CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 17 / 51 platforms for experiential learning, fostering a deeper understanding of the Earth's processes and promoting environmental stewardship. A European Geopark supports environmental education, training and the development of scientific research in the various disciplines within Earth Sciences, the improvement of the natural environment and sustainable development policies (Zouros, 2004). One notable initiative is the 4GEON project, launched in 2022, which connects geoparks across four continents through playful Earth heritage education. This project emphasizes informal, interactive learning tailored to individual geoparks, combining digital resources with outdoor activities to engage youth and local communities in understanding geological features and their relevance to daily life (UNESCO 2024). Additionally, the Estrela UNESCO Global Geopark in Portugal has implemented the Science and Education Network for Sustainability, aiming to promote knowledge of the region through various scientific areas. This network supports applied research and citizen science initiatives, fostering a deeper connection between the local population and their geological heritage (Gomes et al., 2020). These efforts underscore the EGN's commitment to enhancing geoscience education by leveraging the unique geological features of each geopark, promoting sustainable development, and fostering global collaboration. Table 2: Examples of best practices in geoscience teaching in European secondary schools Approach / Project Country / Region Key Features Benefits / Lessons Learned GEOschools project (Comenius Programme) Austria, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain Developed interdisciplinary modules, field-based learning in geoparks, multilingual glossaries. Enhanced student engagement; teacher training supported stronger integration of geoscience in curricula. Earth Learning Idea (ELI) International, incl. European partners Open-access repository with >450 multilingual activities; simple classroom experiments. Democratizes access to high-quality teaching materials; promotes inquiry-based learning even in resource-limited schools. European Geoparks Network (EGN) 28 European countries Geoparks as “outdoor classrooms” offering field trips, local case studies, and citizen science. Strong experiential learning; connects local heritage with sustainability and SDG education. ENGIE project (EU Horizon 2020) 21 European countries Surveyed 750 teachers and engaged ~5,000 students, especially girls; offered teacher training modules. Demonstrated gender-sensitive approaches; increased interest in geoscience careers among female students. Virtual field trips (e.g. TRiPGiFT project, Geological Survey of Belgium) Belgium, EUwide 360° immersive virtual tours of geosites and mining areas. Overcomes cost/logistical barriers of fieldwork; increases accessibility and inclusivity of geoscience education. BetterGeoEdu (Minecraft modification) Sweden Gamified learning tool simulating geology, mineral resources, and sustainable mining. High engagement of digital-native students; links entertainment with real-world geoscience concepts. The Geological Survey of Belgium, in collaboration with the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, offers 360° virtual field trips that showcase significant geosites, such as the UNESCO Global Geopark Famenne-Ardenne. These immersive experiences highlight the importance of geological sites in understanding subsurface potential and promote science outreach by making geological knowledge accessible to a broader audience (Geological Survey of Belgium). CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 18 / 51 Another good example is the TRiPGiFT project, which focuses on training pupils in geosciences by utilising virtual field trips. It offers open simulators of three geoscience virtual field trips, including marble quarrying from antiquity to the present, fluvial and tectonic geomorphology, and other geological themes. These virtual excursions aim to enhance students' understanding of geological processes and promote interest in geosciences through interactive and engaging digital platforms (Spyrou, 2023). Gamification can also be a means to engage young learners. An example is BetterGeoEdu, a project that utilizes BetterGeo – a Minecraft modification developed by the Geological Survey of Sweden – to simulate realistic geological processes, mineral formations, and sustainable mining practices. This approach aligns with the EU's Digital Education Action Plan, emphasising digital readiness and the integration of technical tools in teaching. By embedding educational content within a familiar and engaging platform, BetterGeoEdu aims to inspire creativity and learning, making geology accessible and appealing to the digital-native generation. Such innovative methods can play a crucial role in shaping future industry workers and policymakers, fostering a more informed and sustainable approach to raw material consumption (Westrin et al., 2020). 3.3.4 Main challenges to follow best practices Despite positive developments, several challenges hinder effective geoscience education in Europe (Table 3). These challenges are characterised below. A significant challenge to implementing best practices in geoscience education at the secondary level is the lack of teacher preparedness, both in terms of content knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Geoscience is an interdisciplinary field that requires familiarity with complex Earth systems, spatial reasoning, and dynamic processes – domains often underrepresented in general science teacher training programmes. Many secondary school science teachers come from backgrounds in biology, chemistry, or physics and have limited exposure to Earth science, resulting in gaps in their ability to effectively teach geoscience concepts (King, 2013). This lack of specialisation hinders the adoption of inquiry-based and experiential methods – such as fieldwork, model-based instruction, and digital simulations – that are central to effective geoscience teaching (Ryker & McConnell, 2017a). Furthermore, the pedagogical approaches in contemporary geoscience education, grounded in constructivist and socio-constructivist theories, demand skills in framing student learning, managing open-ended investigations, and integrating digital tools such as GIS and 3D visualisation software (Liben & Titus, 2018). Without targeted professional development, teachers may lack confidence and competence to implement these strategies. The situation gets worse by the limited availability of continuous professional development opportunities focused on Earth sciences, particularly in regions where geoscience is not a compulsory subject in the curriculum (Stokes et al., 2011b). Addressing this challenge requires sustained investment in teacher education programmes that emphasise both geoscience content and innovative teaching methodologies. Initiatives such as Earth Learning Idea and GEOSCHOOL have made steps in this direction by offering resources and workshops to support teacher training (Rodrigues et al., 2013a), yet systemic support remains essential to ensure that teachers are equipped to meet the evolving demands of geoscience education. The ENGIE project, in which EFG played a major role, also offered training for secondary school teachers, with the involvement of EFG’s Panels of Experts. The aim was to help teachers in teaching geoscience in an attractive and engaging way (https://learn.engieproject.eu/). CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 19 / 51 Table 3: Challenges and barriers in teaching geoscience at secondary school level Challenge Description Implications Potential Solutions Teacher preparedness Many teachers are trained in geography, biology, or general science, with limited background in geosciences. Lack of confidence in fieldwork or use of digital tools. Limits quality of instruction; discourages innovative methods such as inquiry-based learning. Provide targeted teacher training; develop professional development modules; strengthen collaboration with universities and professional associations. Curricular integration Geoscience often fragmented into other subjects (geography, biology), rarely taught as a stand-alone subject. Leads to superficial coverage of key concepts (plate tectonics, resource cycles, hazards). Embed geoscience more explicitly in curricula; align with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and SDGs. Resource limitations Field trips, labs, and digital resources are costly and not equally available across schools. Creates inequality between schools; reduces opportunities for experiential learning. Promote open-access teaching materials (e.g. Earth Learning Idea); use virtual field trips and gamified tools; partner with geoparks and museums. Policy support Earth sciences often marginalised in national education policies compared to biology, physics, chemistry. Restricts instructional time and funding; weakens public awareness of geoscience. Advocate for stronger policy recognition at national and EU level; link to Green Deal, Raw Materials Act, and SDG priorities. Student perception Geoscience sometimes perceived as “boring” or less relevant compared to other sciences. Reduces motivation to pursue geoscience careers. Emphasise engaging topics (natural hazards, climate change, fossils); connect lessons to realworld challenges and sustainability issues. A persistent challenge in implementing best practices in geoscience education lies in its marginal status within the secondary school curriculum. Compared to biology, chemistry, and physics, geoscience often receives significantly less instructional time and institutional attention, resulting in limited student exposure to Earth systems and processes (King, 2013). In many educational systems, geoscience is not offered as a standalone subject but is instead fragmented across other disciplines such as geography, environmental science, or general science. While this integration has the potential to provide interdisciplinary perspectives, it can also dilute the subject’s core content and hinder systematic concept development (UNESCO, 2020). The interdisciplinary nature of Earth sciences – linking physical geography, ecology, chemistry, and physics – makes it well suited for integration into related subjects. However, effective integration requires careful curricular design to ensure that key geoscientific concepts are explicitly addressed rather than being treated as peripheral topics. Without structured frameworks and teacher guidance, integration risks becoming superficial, leaving students with fragmented knowledge and limited understanding of complex systems such as plate tectonics, geohazards, or Earth’s resource cycles (Ryker & McConnell, 2017a). Recent efforts such as the GEOSCHOOL project have demonstrated that integrated models can succeed when curricular materials, teacher training, and institutional support are aligned (Rodrigues et al., 2013a). Moreover, aligning geoscience education with themes from Education for Sustainable CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 20 / 51 Development (ESD) can increase its relevance and visibility within broader curricular goals, especially when linked to real-world challenges such as climate change or natural disasters (UNESCO, 2020). Nonetheless, to make integration effective and meaningful, geoscience must be intentionally embedded within cross-disciplinary curricula, supported by coherent standards and adequate instructional time. A major barrier to the effective implementation of best practices in secondary geoscience education is the unequal distribution of educational resources. Fieldwork, laboratory experiments, and digital tools are fundamental components of geoscience teaching, yet many schools – particularly those in rural or economically disadvantaged areas – lack the infrastructure and funding to support these practices (Stokes et al., 2011; Evelpidou et al., 2022). The resource-intensive nature of experiential learning, including transportation for field trips, specialised laboratory equipment, or access to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and virtual reality tools, can worsen existing educational inequalities, limiting students' opportunities to engage with Earth science content (Makri et al., 2020b). These inequalities not only affect students’ cognitive outcomes but also their interest and engagement in geosciences. Without opportunities to explore real-world geological contexts or interact with spatial data, learners may struggle to grasp abstract processes such as plate tectonics, erosion, or geohazard dynamics (Liben & Titus, 2018). Moreover, schools lacking access to high-quality teaching materials or professional development for educators often fall behind in adopting innovative, inquiry-based pedagogies that are essential for effective geoscience instruction. To address these inequities, open-access educational resources, such as those provided by Earth Learning Idea,and digital platforms offering virtual field trips have emerged as promising solutions. These tools can simulate geological phenomena and provide interactive experiences that approximate field-based learning (Bouziat et al., 2020). In parallel, partnerships between schools and geoparks have proven effective in facilitating access to authentic geological environments, offering place-based learning opportunities even in resource-constrained settings (Gomes et al., 2020). These strategies contribute to democratising geoscience education and ensuring that all students, regardless of context, can develop the spatial and systems thinking skills required for scientific literacy and environmental management. A key challenge to advancing best practices in geoscience education lies in the limited policy recognition it receives at both, national and European, levels. Despite the growing relevance of Earth sciences to pressing global issues – such as climate change, resource management, and natural hazard mitigation – geoscience remains underrepresented in educational policy frameworks when compared to other STEM disciplines (King, 2013; UNESCO, 2020). This marginalisation has direct effects on curriculum design, teacher training, and resource allocation, ultimately constraining efforts to embed geoscience within broader educational agendas focused on sustainability and scientific competence. Effective geoscience education plays a critical role in fostering competencies aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4.7, which emphasises the importance of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Yet, in many European countries, policy support for integrating ESD into science curricula lacks clarity regarding Earth science content (Hofman-Bergholm, 2021). As a result, opportunities to teach key geoscientific concepts, such as systems thinking, spatial analysis, and human-Earth interactions are often missed or superficially addressed in other subjects like geography or environmental science. Strengthening policy support requires coordinated action at both national and EU levels. European initiatives such as the GEOschools project and the Earth Learning Idea platform demonstrate the potential of policy-backed programmes to promote geoscience knowledge through teacher CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 21 / 51 development, open-access resources, and curriculum innovation (Rodrigues et al., 2013). Moreover, integrating geoscience into science education strategies under the European Green Deal and Digital Education Action Plan could reinforce its role in preparing students for future environmental and societal challenges. A robust policy framework is thus essential to elevate the status of geoscience education and align it with broader educational, environmental, and technological priorities. 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE CRM-GEOTHERMAL VIDEO CONTEST There is strong scientific evidence showing that contests and competitions are effective tools for boosting students’ interest in science and engagement with STEM fields (Miller et al. 2017). Contests that invite participants to produce their own science videos, such as the European SciChallenge programme, encourage creativity, peer-to-peer communication, and ownership over STEM topics. By generating video content, students build confidence, sharpen science communication skills, and identify as science creators rather than passive learners (Dermutz & Scheuch 2016). In line with that, in 2024, the CRM-geothermal consortium launched a video contest on geothermal and critical raw materials for 12-18-year-olds in Europe. Participants were invited to address any of the following subjects: (1) the key role of geothermal in fighting climate change, (2) the importance of critical raw materials in our everyday life and (3) the importance of mining in their area. In this section, metrics and their metadata collected during the CRM-geothermal Video Contest are analysed and presented in graphs. The main purpose is to identify trends and potential relationships that have an impact on engagement. The CRM-geothermal Affiliated Entities (18 of the National Associations of the European Federation of Geologists, representing different European countries) supported the promotion of the video contest. Their support with local contacts and in national languages was key to promoting this activity. In total 1,598 schools were contacted (where data was available) resulting in 16 videos being submitted. From this, five finalists were selected. Countries such as Italy contacted 485 schools but had only 1 video submission (Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.4), possibly indicating a lack of follow-up engagement. The Portuguese Association of Geologists contacted 649 schools and 835 teachers. Portugal and the UK had the highest number of submissions (four each). The Affiliated Entity from Portugal (Portuguese Association of Geologists) was one of the most active in promoting the contest. Although there was no Affiliated Entity from the UK, intensive promotion through the project and EFG communication channels played a key role in engaging teenagers there. Some countries (e.g. Slovenia, Bulgaria) showed better conversion with fewer schools contacted. This suggests that direct outreach is not always a clear predictor of participation, and other factors, such as engagement methods or school enthusiasm, may have a larger role. This is in agreement with what has been observed in other projects in which EFG is participating. The ENGIE project (https://www.engieproject.eu/) was a success in engaging schools, but the effect has been in a declining mode in other projects such CEEGS and CRM-Geothermal. Better targeting or follow-up might significantly improve engagement. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 22 / 51 Figure 4: Video submissions against schools contacted per country, bars show the number of video submissions per country, red line with dots indicates how many schools were contacted in that country. Figure 5 presents the total impressions/views per platform used for the contest. LinkedIn had the highest reach, with 6,450 views, followed by X, with 5,630 views. Instagram and TikTok, although youth-oriented, had lower reach (1,757 and 1,342 respectively), possibly due to engagement limitations. However, another factor might be algorithm optimisation when using the aforementioned platforms. The time of postage and frequency of posts from the poster have significant impacts on how the platforms perform. Usually, the system ranks higher frequent posters and thus it presents their posts quicker and frequent. Figure 5: Social media impact of CRM-Geothermal Video Contest. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 23 / 51 Most participants were aged 16 and 17 (7 each). There was moderate participation from younger teens, with a peak at age 12 (6 students), likely driven by class-based team submissions (Figure 6). Figure 6: Age distribution of participants. Of the participants, 73% were female (19 participants), with the remaining 27% being male (7 participants). This suggests the contest resonated significantly more with female students. After reviewing the data metrics from social media dissemination some highlights provided clues that may have driven engagement and audience response. The videos with the highest number of views received more impressions and longer total watch times. However, this visibility is also related to the underlying algorithms of social media, which suggest that the more frequently a video appears in users’ feeds or searches, the more likely it is to be watched and watched for longer durations. The data analysis indicates a strong correlation between high-performing videos and the number of new subscribers gained. On the same note, videos that relied heavily on external sources, such as links shared via WhatsApp or Facebook did not consistently achieve better performance. Although such channels can help spread content, they may not always have reached audiences specifically interested in geothermal or CRM topics, leading to limited viewer retention. This should be viewed from the perspective that the subject matter is highly specialised and thus the interest has a narrow spectrum of viewers who share the content. Future strategic promotion, combined with clearer data tracking, will shed light on better understanding the linkages and audience preferences. In conclusion, some countries, such as Italy, contacted 485 schools but received only 1 submission, indicating that an arbitrary high number of contacts does not ensure engagement. LinkedIn and X outperformed Instagram and TikTok in raw impressions. This may imply that audience-platform mismatch might have limited actual contest visibility among youth and algorithm performance needs to be taken into account in future actions. Older teens, especially girls, are the most engaged demographic group. Future contests might leverage this by tailoring messaging to these groups. The results of the CRM-geothermal video contest demonstrate both, the potential and the limitations of this form of youth engagement. With 26 participants from eight European countries submitting 16 videos, the contest successfully reached a diverse audience and engaged predominantly older teenagers, especially girls, in creative science communication. The social media campaign associated with the contest generated over 15,000 impressions across platforms and increased the project’s visibility among younger demographic groups, confirming the value of interactive and participatory approaches for outreach. Although participation numbers remained modest compared to the scale of promotion, the contest nonetheless provided a powerful platform for awareness-raising, allowing CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 24 / 51 students, teachers, and parents to reflect on the relevance of geothermal energy and critical raw materials in the context of the energy transition. For CRM-geothermal, the exercise has proven directly relevant to the project’s exploitation strategy, as it has illustrated effective ways to communicate complex topics to younger audiences, tested innovative engagement tools, and provided lessons for scaling up educational initiatives in schools and communities. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS Secondary schools play a decisive role in shaping awareness and attitudes toward Earth sciences, sustainability, and resource management. As the CRM-geothermal project has demonstrated, students are most engaged when geoscience topics are linked to real-world issues, such as climate change, energy transition, or the use of raw materials in everyday life. Yet, geoscience education remains fragmented across European curricula, often confined to subsets of geography or general science, with limited visibility of geothermal energy and critical raw materials. Teacher preparedness and access to resources are additional challenges. At the same time, student surveys confirm both strong interest in socially relevant topics and negative perceptions when content is taught in abstract or outdated ways. Table 4: Recommendations for strengthening geoscience education in European secondary schools Area Recommendation Key Actions Expected Impact Curricular integration Embed geoscience more explicitly within existing subjects (geography, physics, chemistry, biology). Link geothermal energy to climate change modules; integrate CRMs into chemistry/physics lessons; develop cross-disciplinary projects (e.g. battery life cycle). Greater visibility of geoscience; stronger relevance to sustainability and daily life. Pedagogical innovation Apply inquiry-based, problem-based, and experiential learning approaches. Use case studies, field trips, virtual field trips, and debates on socio-scientific issues; adopt gamified tools and simulations. Increased student engagement and critical thinking; improved longterm retention. Teacher training and resources Strengthen teacher capacity and provide open-access materials. Develop online/blended training modules; partner with universities and professional associations; expand CRMgeothermal teaching materials repository. More confident and skilled teachers; consistent use of modern teaching approaches. Student Engagement Stimulate creativity and awareness through participatory formats. Organise video, poster, or essay contests; promote peer-to-peer learning; leverage social media platforms; highlight geoscience career paths. Higher motivation among students; improved perception of geoscience careers. Partnerships and networks Connect schools with external actors for expertise and resources. Collaborate with museums, geoparks, universities, and industry; involve national geological societies; integrate into EU initiatives (e.g. Geoparks Network, Earth Learning Idea). Enhanced experiential learning; access to cuttingedge knowledge; alignment with EU priorities. Against this background, the recommendations for secondary schools outlined above aim to improve curricular integration, introduce modern pedagogical approaches, and strengthen teacher capacity (Table 4). They are directly aligned with the European Green Deal, the Critical Raw Materials Act, and the Sustainable Development Goals, while supporting the CRM-geothermal exploitation strategy to CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 25 / 51 raise awareness of sustainable raw material supply and renewable energy. The recommendations and the related key actions are detailed below. 5.1 CURRICULAR INTEGRATION A first priority is to strengthen the place of geoscience in secondary school curricula. At present, geology is rarely taught as a stand-alone subject; instead, it is embedded within geography, natural sciences, or environmental studies. This integration can be effective if handled systematically, but in many cases geoscience topics remain peripheral. Curricular reform should therefore ensure that fundamental geoscience concepts are explicitly included and coherently linked to broader themes of sustainability and the energy transition. Topics related to geothermal energy and critical raw materials provide excellent entry points for this integration. For instance, modules on climate change in geography can be extended with content on geothermal energy as a renewable solution, while chemistry classes can explore the life cycle of critical elements such as lithium, cobalt, or rare earths. Physics lessons may highlight geothermal heat as an application of thermodynamics, while ethics or social studies can address issues of raw material sourcing and circular economy. Cross-disciplinary projects, such as “The hidden journey of a smartphone battery,” can help students connect scientific concepts with their daily lives and with European policy goals. By embedding such content into existing curricular structures, schools can make geoscience both relevant and engaging, without necessarily requiring additional teaching hours. 5.2 TEACHING APPROACHES AND PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION Curricular content alone is not enough to foster meaningful engagement. The methods used to deliver geoscience topics are equally important. Research and European pilot projects demonstrate that inquiry-based and problem-based learning (IBL, PBL) are particularly effective in stimulating curiosity and higher-order thinking. For example, students can investigate how geothermal plants operate, or debate the social implications of mining in their region, thereby developing both, scientific understanding and critical thinking. Experiential learning is another key approach. Fieldwork has long been a cornerstone of geoscience education, and whenever possible schools should provide opportunities for students to explore local geological sites, geothermal facilities, or science museums. Where logistical or financial constraints limit such activities, virtual field trips and interactive digital simulations can provide accessible alternatives. Digital innovation offers further opportunities. The use of GIS platforms, augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR), and gamified learning environments can bring abstract geological processes to life. Projects such as BetterGeoEdu (Minecraft modification) demonstrate how popular digital tools can be transformed into engaging educational platforms. Similarly, the CRM-geothermal Fluid Atlas can be adapted into a teaching resource, offering students hands-on interaction with real data about geothermal systems and raw materials. By combining inquiry-driven methods, experiential opportunities, and digital tools, teachers can make geoscience more attractive and relevant, while also aligning lessons with the digital skills required in modern education and the labour market. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 32 / 51 Figure 8: From current strengths to CRM-geothermal implications in raw materials higher education As a summary, European raw-materials higher education is moving in the right direction, more networked, more sustainability-oriented and increasingly entrepreneurial, yet still heterogeneous in coverage and depth. To meet the CRMA’s strategic ambitions and the skills required by emerging coproduction approaches, universities should - expand value-chain-spanning curricula, - modularise and jointly accredit programmes across borders, - promote ESG and stakeholder engagement training, and - accelerate digital competencies and innovation skills across geology, mining and processing. Doing so would tighten the link between EU policy objectives and graduate capabilities, and directly support the exploitation and legacy goals of CRM-geothermal. 6.2 GEOTHERMAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE Geothermal higher education in Europe plays a crucial role in training the specialists required for the energy transition. Universities provide the scientific, engineering, and policy competencies necessary to explore, design, and operate geothermal systems; yet, the educational landscape remains fragmented and uneven in scope. While some institutions offer fully dedicated master’s programmes in geothermal engineering or geoenergy, most universities cover geothermal topics only as elective modules within broader geoscience, hydrogeology, or energy curricula. This situation reflects both the interdisciplinary nature of geothermal energy, which spans geology, engineering, environmental sciences, and economics, and the historical dominance of fossil–fuel–oriented subsurface education. In recent years, EU policy frameworks such as the European Green Deal, the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, and the EU Skills Agenda have sharpened the need for specialised geothermal training, not only as a renewable energy technology but also as a potential co-production pathway for critical raw materials. 6.2.1 Overview of the landscape Geothermal education in Europe has developed steadily since the 1970s, but remains highly heterogeneous across countries and institutions. The GeoElec project (2014) identified more than 30 universities offering geothermal exploration or engineering modules, although only a small fraction provided dedicated master’s programmes (Spalek et al. 2014). Most geothermal education is CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 33 / 51 embedded within the curricula of Earth sciences, hydrogeology, petroleum engineering, or energy engineering, highlighting its interdisciplinary character. Dedicated programmes exist at institutions such as FAU Erlangen–Nürnberg and TUM (Germany), Montanuniversität Leoben (Austria), University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland), and the University of Edinburgh (UK). In France, the University of Strasbourg (GeoT) and the University of Pau run geothermal courses and field schools, while in Italy, universities such as the University of Pisa and Roma Tre offer specialisations within geoscience programmes. Non-EU actors such as Reykjavik University (Iceland) continue to play an influential role, with long-standing links to European capacity building through the UN Geothermal Training Programme (Table 6). Table 6: Selected European university programmes related to geothermal energy Country University / Faculty Programme / Specialisation Notes / Source Austria Montanuniversität Leoben Geoenergy Engineering (M.Sc) https://www.unileoben.ac.at/en/studying/grad uate-studies/resources/geoenergy-engineering France University of Strasbourg (GeoT) Geothermal exploration / energy modules Course+field school in geothermal energy (https://geot.unistra.fr/educationgeot.unistra.fr) France University of Pau / Pays de l’Adour SAGE – Sustainable Geoenergies Master combining geoscience, energy & environment. Germany FAU ErlangenNürnberg & TUM Geothermal Energy (M.Sc.) (joint) Covers exploration, reservoir modelling, utilization. (https://www.nat.fau.eu) Germany TUM / FAU GeoThermics / GeoEnergy (M.Sc.) Emphasis on geothermal systems and subsurface energy (https://www.ed.tum.de) Germany TU Clausthal Geothermal Engineering (M.Sc.) Program has been advertised (status to verify) Germany TU Bergakademie Freiberg Proposed geothermal / geoenergy programme Strong mining & resource research base; geothermal program in planning or development Germany TH Georg Agricola (Bochum) Geoengineering / PostMining (M.Eng) While not purely geothermal, it involves subsurface/engineering topics. Iceland Reykjavik University / Iceland School of Energy MSc in Sustainable Energy with geothermal emphasis Though non-EU, relevant for completeness (historical geothermal education in EU contexts). Italy University of Pisa Geothermal specialization (module) Specialization in geothermal resource exploration (http://www.geoelec.eu) Italy University Roma3 Geothermal module / specialization http://www.geoelec.eu Switzerland University of Neuchâtel / CHYN Hydrogeology & Geothermics (M.Sc.) Focus on groundwater and geothermal coupling. United Kingdom University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences MSc GeoEnergy Combines energy topics, geological and system perspectives (https://edadfed.ed.ac.uk) Europe (panregional / professional) IEP (Institute of Environmental Professions) Geothermics & Geothermal Applications (M.Sc) Operational qualification in geothermal exploitation (https://iep.edu.eu/cgi-sy 4 countries Geo3En partner universities Proposed Erasmus Mundus Master in Geothermal Engineering Network initiative to build shared geothermal education across Europe (https://geo3en.eu/) CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 34 / 51 6.2.2 Strengths of Current Programmes European universities are recognised worldwide for their expertise in reservoir characterisation, hydrogeology, and geoscience modelling. Flagship programmes such as CHYN’s Hydrogeology and Geothermics MSc in Neuchâtel 9 and the GeoT programme in Strasbourg 10 exemplify advanced integration of geoscience and field-based education. Another strength lies in applied and experiential learning. Programmes often include fieldwork, laboratory sessions, and real-data modelling, ensuring that graduates gain practical experience. For example, Strasbourg’s field school requires students to construct geothermal reservoir models, while Montanuniversität Leoben links geoenergy teaching with industrial pilot projects. Collaboration initiatives such as the proposed Geo3En 11 network demonstrate momentum towards joint, harmonised curricula at the European level, similar to what EIT RawMaterials has achieved in raw materials education. 6.2.3 Integration of Sustainability and Policy Context Geothermal education is increasingly aligned with sustainability narratives, positioning geothermal as a low-carbon energy source supporting the European Green Deal and the EU Skills Agenda. Environmental aspects, resource efficiency, and climate mitigation are common components of curricula. However, integration remains partial. ESG (environmental, social, and governance) competences and socio-economic aspects of geothermal development, such as permitting, stakeholder engagement, and public acceptance, are usually taught as electives or project options, not as compulsory core elements. This contrasts with the growing policy emphasis on social licence to operate and community benefits. 6.2.4 Gaps and challenges Despite progress, several challenges and limitations persist in geothermal higher education: − Limited dedicated programmes, only a handful of universities offer fully dedicated geothermal degrees; most treat geothermal as an elective. − Fragmentation of focus, some programmes emphasise geoscience (hydrogeology, reservoir geology), while others focus on engineering (drilling, plant design), with insufficient integration across the full value chain. − Absence of standard frameworks, unlike raw materials (INTERMIN), geothermal education lacks a harmonised competence framework, making it difficult to compare programmes across countries. − Digitalisation gap, few curricula systematically integrate big data, AI, or advanced reservoir modelling, though these are increasingly critical in exploration and monitoring. − Weak linkage to raw materials, the concept of co-production of CRMs from geothermal fluids, central to CRM-geothermal, is almost absent in existing courses. 9 https://www.unine.ch/chyn 10 https://geot.unistra.fr/ 11 https://geo3en.eu/ CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 35 / 51 6.2.5 Implications for CRM-geothermal For CRM-geothermal, the current landscape offers a strong scientific and engineering foundation, but requires targeted updates to align with future needs: − Introduce co-production concepts, linking geothermal utilisation with CRM recovery. − Expand interdisciplinarity, bridging geoscience, engineering, economics, and social sciences. − Mainstream ESG competences, making environmental and stakeholder modules compulsory rather than elective. − Accelerate digitalisation training, including AI-based reservoir modelling and real-time monitoring. − Foster European collaboration, leveraging networks such as Geo3En to create joint degrees and mobility schemes. By addressing these challenges, geothermal higher education can prepare graduates to lead innovation in co-production and sustainable energy systems, directly contributing to the exploitation and longterm legacy of the CRM-geothermal project. The flow from strengths to CRM-geothermal implications is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9: From current strengths to CRM-geothermal implications in geothermal higher education 7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITIES Universities are central to the long-term success and exploitation of the CRM-geothermal project. They are the primary institutions responsible for training the geoscientists, engineers, and policy experts who will implement Europe’s twin transition towards climate neutrality and digitalisation. Higher education therefore, provides the key link between project-level research and the skilled workforce required to scale up geothermal–CRM co-production technologies across Europe. The assessment presented in Chapter 6 shows that European higher education already has a strong foundation, with internationally recognised expertise in geology, mining engineering, and geothermal science. Centres of excellence such as Montanuniversität Leoben, RWTH Aachen, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, the University of Porto, the University of Exeter, and specialised geothermal programmes at FAU Erlangen–Nürnberg, TUM, Strasbourg, Neuchâtel, and Edinburgh demonstrate the breadth of CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 36 / 51 capacity that exists. At the same time, significant gaps remain: curricula are fragmented, few universities offer dedicated geothermal programmes, and there is limited integration of sustainability, ESG competences, digitalisation, and most critically the co-production of critical raw materials from geothermal fluids. Addressing these gaps is not only an academic challenge but also a strategic necessity. European policy frameworks such as the European Green Deal, the Critical Raw Materials Act, the EU Skills Agenda, and the Sustainable Development Goals explicitly call for secure, sustainable supplies of energy and raw materials, supported by a well-trained workforce. Universities must therefore adapt their curricula to reflect these priorities, ensuring that graduates are equipped with interdisciplinary competences that cover the entire value chain, from subsurface exploration and resource characterisation to processing, recycling, environmental governance, and stakeholder engagement. Figure 10: Framework for the recommendations for universities The recommendations described in the following sections translate the findings of Chapter 6 into concrete, actionable proposals for higher education institutions They cover curriculum integration and modernisation, the development of new modules and interdisciplinary programmes, expansion of experiential learning, and alignment with EU policy frameworks (Figure 10). Together, they provide a roadmap for embedding CRM-geothermal knowledge into European higher education, thereby securing the project’s legacy and contributing directly to Europe’s strategic autonomy in energy and raw materials. The recommendations, related key actions, and expected impact are summarised in Table 7. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 37 / 51 Table 7: Summary of recommendations for universities for embedding the CRM-geothermal knowledge into the higher education Area Recommendation Key Actions Expected Impact Curriculum Integration & Modernisation Embed geothermal–CRM co-production into geology, mining, and energy curricula Revise syllabi; align with competence frameworks (INTERMIN, Geo3En); add systems-thinking perspectives Graduates able to understand synergies between renewable energy and raw materials New Modules and Courses Introduce modules on geothermal fluids as CRM sources, ESG/geoethics, digitalisation, and circular economy Design elective courses first; progressively expand into core curricula; use CRM-geothermal Fluid Atlas as teaching tool Broader competence profiles; technical, digital, and societal skills embedded Interdisciplinary Programmes & Joint Degrees Develop Erasmus Mundusstyle MScs combining geoscience, engineering, policy, and sustainability Pool expertise across universities (e.g. Leoben, Aachen, Freiberg, Porto, Exeter, Strasbourg); create mobility pathways Joint degrees with unique competence profiles; harmonisation of European higher education Experiential & Applied Learning Strengthen fieldwork, internships, and digital/virtual training Use demonstrator sites, Fluid Atlas datasets, VR/AR, and industry-linked theses Hands-on competences; improved employability and innovation readiness Alignment with EU Policy Priorities Integrate CRMA, Green Deal, SDGs, and EU Skills Agenda into education Develop policy case studies; involve regulators in teaching; simulate permitting and stakeholder processes Graduates prepared to operate in policy and governance contexts; better social licence outcomes 7.1 CURRICULUM INTEGRATION AND MODERNISATION A first and fundamental recommendation is to strengthen the integration of geothermal energy and critical raw materials (CRM) co-production into existing university curricula. At present, most European programmes in geology, mining, or energy engineering treat geothermal energy and raw materials as separate domains, if they address them at all. This fragmentation limits students’ understanding of the synergies between renewable energy production and sustainable resource supply. Curriculum modernisation should therefore ensure that geothermal–CRM co-production concepts are embedded as cross-cutting themes within geoscience and engineering degrees. For example, geothermal modules could explicitly address the recovery of lithium or rare earth elements from geothermal fluids, thereby linking reservoir geology and hydrogeochemistry with mineral processing and circular economy strategies. Similarly, mining and raw-materials programmes should broaden their perspective to include subsurface energy as a resource dimension alongside conventional extraction. The integration process can build on existing competence frameworks such as those developed by the INTERMIN project for raw materials education and by emerging geothermal education networks (e.g. Geo3En). Universities should align learning outcomes with these frameworks, ensuring comparability and mobility of graduates across Europe. In doing so, institutions will not only enhance the coherence of curricula but also create pathways for joint accreditation and Erasmus-type exchanges, reinforcing the European Higher Education Area. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 38 / 51 Modernisation should also include the incorporation of systems thinking. Students must be educated to understand resource development as a complex socio-technical system that combines geological, technical, environmental, and societal dimensions. Embedding such integrative perspectives in curricula will better prepare graduates to work in interdisciplinary teams and to respond to the multifaceted challenges of the energy and raw materials transition. By explicitly integrating CRM-geothermal concepts and updating curricula accordingly, universities will ensure that future professionals are equipped to implement innovative solutions that contribute simultaneously to Europe’s energy security, raw material supply, and climate-neutrality objectives. 7.2 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MODULES AND COURSES While curriculum integration provides the structural framework, universities also need to design and implement new modules and courses that address emerging knowledge areas at the intersection of geothermal energy and critical raw materials. These modules should go beyond traditional geology, mining, and engineering training, introducing students to the scientific, technological, and societal dimensions of co-production. Figure 11: Thematic priorities for new modules and courses Four main thematic priorities can be identified (Figure 11): − Sustainable raw materials from geothermal fluids, cCourses should explore the geochemistry of geothermal brines, mineral recovery technologies, and the potential for lithium, rare earths, and other CRMs to be sourced sustainably from geothermal reservoirs. Linking geoscience with mineral processing and environmental engineering will equip students with knowledge directly relevant to CRM-geothermal. − Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and geoethics, new teaching units should address the broader context of geothermal and raw-materials projects, including environmental impact assessment, social licence to operate, community engagement, and ethical responsibility in resource development. Embedding ESG competences into university curricula will prepare graduates for the governance challenges associated with Europe’s energy transition. − Digitalisation and advanced modelling, geothermal and raw-materials exploration increasingly rely on digital tools such as big data analytics, machine learning, and real-time monitoring. New courses should introduce students to these technologies, focusing on their application in reservoir modelling, exploration targeting, and process optimisation. − Circular economy and value-chain integration, modules should highlight how geothermal– CRM co-production contributes to circular resource use, reducing waste, and maximising value across the resource and energy system. This aligns with broader EU strategies for sustainable materials management. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 39 / 51 These new courses can be introduced as electives in the short term and progressively expanded into core components of geology, mining, and energy programmes. They can also form the basis for new joint or Erasmus Mundus master’s programmes, ensuring visibility and mobility across European universities. By developing such modules, universities will ensure that their graduates are not only technically competent but also socially and environmentally literate, digitally skilled, and capable of contributing to Europe’s leadership in sustainable geothermal–CRM co-production. 7.3 INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES AND JOINT DEGREES Geothermal–CRM co-production is by definition an interdisciplinary endeavour, spanning geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, mining engineering, reservoir engineering, materials science, process engineering, environmental studies, economics, and policy. Preparing graduates to work effectively in this space requires educational formats that break down disciplinary silos and foster collaboration across faculties and institutions. A key recommendation is the development of interdisciplinary master’s programmes and joint degrees. These should integrate the technical foundations of geoscience and engineering with educating in sustainability, economics, and governance. Such programmes could follow the successful models already implemented in the raw-materials sector, notably the EIT RawMaterials-labelled Master Schools (e.g. EMerald, SUMA, AMIR, SINReM), which combine multi-country mobility, entrepreneurship training, and industry-linked projects. In geothermal education, promising initiatives are already emerging. The proposed Geo3En network aims to establish a joint Erasmus Mundus Master in Geothermal Engineering, uniting institutions across Europe under a common curriculum. This approach can serve as a blueprint for CRMgeothermal, ensuring that students benefit from mobility, harmonised learning outcomes, and exposure to diverse geological and technological settings. Joint degrees also enable resource sharing and efficiency. Universities with strengths in different domains (e.g. Montanuniversität Leoben in mining, FAU/TUM in geothermal, RWTH Aachen in georesources, and Porto/Exeter in resource engineering) can pool expertise to deliver comprehensive programmes. This integration will create graduates with unique competence profiles, combining technical excellence with cross-disciplinary systems understanding. To be effective, such programmes should also embed industry and policy perspectives. Partnerships with geothermal operators, raw-materials companies, and regulatory agencies can ensure that case studies, internships, and thesis projects address real-world challenges. This will strengthen employability while reinforcing the strategic relevance of academic training. By investing in interdisciplinary and joint master’s programmes, European universities will ensure that the next generation of professionals is prepared to implement co-production concepts, bridging scientific innovation, industrial application, and policy frameworks in support of the CRM-geothermal exploitation strategy. 7.4 EXPERIENTIAL AND APPLIED LEARNING Beyond classroom teaching, experiential and applied learning is essential for preparing students to work in geothermal–CRM co-production. The complexity of subsurface systems, the integration of energy and raw materials, and the need for societal acceptance all require graduates who can apply theoretical knowledge to real-world contexts. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 40 / 51 Universities should therefore expand opportunities for fieldwork, laboratory practice, and industry collaboration. Traditional geoscience field courses remain valuable, but should increasingly be complemented by site visits to geothermal plants, pilot projects, and raw-material extraction facilities. These experiences allow students to see directly how geological, engineering, and environmental factors interact in practice. Where direct site access is limited, universities can adopt virtual field trips and simulation-based training. Recent advances in VR/AR technologies and digital twins enable students to explore geothermal reservoirs, model mineral recovery processes, and engage in scenario-based decision making. Such tools not only improve accessibility but also support training in advanced digital competences. Internships and thesis projects conducted in collaboration with industry, research institutes, and regulatory agencies should become a standard component of programmes. The CRM-geothermal demonstrator sites and the project’s Fluid Atlas offer excellent resources for student projects, combining real datasets with cutting-edge methodologies. Involving students in these activities ensures a direct link between education and research, while also strengthening the exploitation of project outputs. Finally, experiential learning should extend to societal and governance dimensions. Students can participate in role-play exercises or stakeholder simulations that reproduce the permitting, policy, and community engagement processes associated with geothermal–CRM projects. This exposure equips graduates with the soft skills required to navigate the socio-political environment of resource development. By systematically embedding experiential and applied learning into curricula, universities can ensure that students graduate not only with strong technical foundations but also with the practical, digital, and socio-economic competences necessary to implement CRM-geothermal innovations. 7.5 ALIGNMENT WITH EU POLICY PRIORITIES For university curricula to remain relevant and impactful, they must be aligned with the strategic policy frameworks that guide Europe’s energy and raw-materials transition. The European Green Deal sets the overarching objective of climate neutrality by 2050, while the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA, 2023) establishes targets for domestic sourcing, processing, and recycling of strategic materials. Complementing these are the EU Skills Agenda, which emphasises training for the green and digital transitions, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which set global benchmarks for responsible resource use and climate action. Universities should therefore integrate policy-oriented content directly into their teaching. This can take the form of dedicated modules on resource governance and policy frameworks where students should gain familiarity with the CRMA, EU taxonomy regulations, and permitting processes for geothermal and mining projects. Case studies and simulation exercises that can analyse real permitting cases, impact assessments, or stakeholder conflicts, allowing students to explore decision-making under regulatory constraints. Policy–science integration with joint teaching with legal scholars, policy experts, and regulators can help bridge disciplinary divides, giving students an understanding of how technical assessments translate into policy actions. International outlook bassed on supply chains and energy systems are global, curricula should also situate European policies within the context of international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement and the UN SDGs. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 41 / 51 By embedding these elements, universities will ensure that their graduates are not only skilled scientists and engineers but also informed actors in the governance of raw materials and renewable energy. This will help bridge the gap between technological innovation and societal implementation, ensuring that CRM-geothermal approaches can be deployed effectively within Europe’s evolving regulatory and policy environment. 7.6 ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTATION Transforming university curricula to integrate geothermal–CRM co-production requires a phased approach that balances immediate opportunities with long-term structural reforms. The following roadmap provides a framework for universities, policymakers, and industry partners to coordinate actions over different time horizons (Figure 12). Figure 12: Roadmap for implementing CRM-geothermal recommendations in universities Short-term (1–2 years) − Introduce elective modules on geothermal–CRM topics within existing geology, mining, and energy programmes. − Use CRM-geothermal outputs such as the Fluid Atlas and demonstrator datasets as teaching resources. − Pilot interdisciplinary seminars bringing together geoscience, engineering, and sustainability students. − Establish short training workshops on ESG, permitting, and stakeholder engagement. Medium-term (3–5 years) − Develop interdisciplinary joint MSc programmes (e.g. Erasmus Mundus style) combining raw materials and geothermal energy. − Expand industry collaboration, including structured internships at geothermal plants, mining companies, and regulatory agencies. − Integrate digitalisation tools (AI, machine learning, digital twins) into geoscience and engineering curricula. − Create policy-oriented case-study courses aligned with the CRMA, Green Deal, and SDGs. Long-term (5+ years) − Institutionalise dedicated degree programmes in geothermal–CRM co-production, supported by European networks such as Geo3En and EIT RawMaterials. − Establish harmonised competence frameworks for geothermal education, similar to INTERMIN’s blueprint for raw materials. CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 48 / 51 Westrin, P., Berthet, T., Brajkovič, R., Pirard, E., Murphy, M., Bellucci, L., Kavanagh, R. (2020): Can we teach children geology using one of the world’s most popular video games?. European Geologist, 50. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4311736 Zamalloa, T., & Sanz, J. (2020). Attitudes of secondary school students towards geology in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education 41(1), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1845641 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377. Zouros, N. (2004). The European Geoparks Network: Geological heritage protection and local development. Episodes, 27(3), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2004/v27i3/002 CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 49 / 51 10 ANNEX 1: UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE WITH RELEVANT GEOSCIENCE AND RAW MATERIAL TEACHING CONTENT Source: - EIT RawMaterials; - COBALT project, Deliverable D3.1 - Education related to mineral raw materials in the European Union, 2014; - INTERMIN project, Preliminary survey results, 2019; - Society of Mining Professors: 2020 Report on Student and Faculty Numbers in Mining Engineering Programs. Country University Department/Programme Austria Montanuniversität Leoben Department of Mineral Resources and Petroleum Engineering Austria Graz University of Technology Geoscience Austria University of Innsbruck Geoscience Belgium KU Leuven SUMA Master Programme on Sustainable Materials Belgium University of Mons ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] Belgium University of Liège EMerald Master in Resources Engineering Bulgaria University of Mining and Geology St. Ivan Rilski 'Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] Croatia University of Zagreb Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering Czech Republic Charles University Faculty of Science, Department of Geology Czech Republic Technical University of Ostrava Faculty of Mining and Geology Denmark University of Copenhagen Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Estonia University of Tartu Department of Geology Estonia Tallinn University of Technology ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Environmental Engineering'] Finland Aalto University School of Chemical Engineering Finland Abo Akademi University ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] Finland University of Helsinki Department of Geosciences and Geography Finland University of Oulu Oulu Mining School Finland Kajaani University of Applied Sciences ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] Finland Lappia University of Applied Sciences ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] France University of Lorraine EMerald Master in Resources Engineering France École Nationale Supérieure de Géologie Department of Geology France MINES ParisTech ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] France Ecole des Mines de Douai ['Metallurgy', 'Environmental Engineering'] France Ecole des Mines de Nancy ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Environmental Engineering', 'Recycling'] Germany Clausthal University of Technology Institute of Mining CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 50 / 51 Germany RWTH Aachen University Faculty of Georesources and Materials Engineering Germany Technische Hochschule Georg Agricola Geo-Resources and Process Engineering Germany TU Bergakademie Freiberg Faculty of Geosciences, Geoengineering and Mining Germany Technische University¤t Berlin ['Geoscience'] Germany Technische Universitat Clausthal ['Geoscience', 'Mineral Processing', 'Metallurgy', 'Environmental Engineering'] Germany University of Hannover ['Geoscience'] Germany TFH Georg Agricola ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] Greece National Technical University of Athens School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Greece Technical University of Crete School of Mineral Resources Engineering Greece University of Western Macedonia Department of Mineral Resources Engineering Hungary University of Miskolc Faculty of Earth Science and Engineering Hungary University of Szeged Department of Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Petrology Ireland University of Limerick ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] Ireland Trinity College Dublin ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] Ireland University College Cork ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] Ireland University College Dublin ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] Iceland University of Iceland Faculty of Earth Sciences Italy University of Cagliari ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] Italy University of Trieste ['Geoscience'] Italy University of Bologna ['Geoscience'] Italy Politecnico di Milano-Bicocca SUMA Master Programme on Sustainable Materials Italy University of Trento SUMA Master Programme on Sustainable Materials Latvia University of Latvia Department of Geology Lithuania Vilnius University Department of Geology and Mineralogy Netherlands Delft University of Technology Department of Geoscience and Engineering Norway University of Bergen Department of Earth Science Norway University of Oslo Department of Geosciences Poland AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Mining and Geoengineering Poland University of Warsaw Faculty of Geology Poland University of Wrocław Institute of Geological Sciences Poland Czestochowa University of Technology ['Metallurgy'] Poland Lodz University of Technology ['Environmental Engineering'] Poland Poznan University of Technology ['Recycling'] Poland Silesian University of Technology ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Metallurgy', 'Environmental Engineering'] CRM-GEOTHERMAL DELIVERABLE 5.6 CRM-GEOTHERMAL_D.6.5 Page 51 / 51 Poland Wroclaw University of Technology ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Environmental Engineering'] Portugal University of Porto Faculty of Engineering Portugal Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology'] Portugal University of Evora Geoscience Romania University of Bucharest Faculty of Geology and Geophysics Romania Technical University of Petrosani ['Mining Technology', 'Environmental Engineering'] Romania Technical University of Cluj-Napoca ['Mining Technology', 'Mineral Processing', 'Environmental Engineering'] Serbia University of Belgrade Faculty of Mining and Geology Slovakia Comenius University Faculty of Natural Sciences, Geology and Paleontology Slovenia University of Ljubljana Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering Spain Universidad de Vigo Higher School of Mining Engineering Spain Universidad Politécnica de Madrid School of Mining and Energy Engineering Spain Universidad de Oviedo ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Environmental Engineering'] Spain Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] Spain Escuela Politécnica Superior de Linares Department of Mining Engineering Sweden Luleå University of Technology Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Eng. Sweden University of Gothenburg Department of Earth Sciences Sweden Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences Sweden Chalmers University of Technology ['Geoscience', 'Environmental Engineering'] Sweden KTH Royal Institute of Technology ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] Sweden Lund University ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] Sweden Stockholm University ['Geoscience'] United Kingdom University of Aberdeen School of Geosciences United Kingdom University of Dundee Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP) United Kingdom University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences United Kingdom University of Exeter Camborne School of Mines United Kingdom University of St Andrews Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences United Kingdom Cardiff University ['Geoscience'] United Kingdom Imperial College London ['Geoscience', 'Mining Technology', 'Metallurgy'] United Kingdom University of Leeds ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] United Kingdom University of Manchester ['Geoscience', 'Metallurgy'] United Kingdom University of Sheffield ['Metallurgy', 'Environmental Engineering'] United Kingdom University of Glasgow Geoscience