Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify knowledge gaps on insinuations of possible directions of European Union (EU) and international climate policies.
Design/methodology/approach
This study has used participatory approach of highly experienced stakeholders’ engagement, involved directly or indirectly in the process of policymaking. A range of priority issues has been initially identified through desk analysis and key stakeholders have been selected and invited to partake in the process. Preliminary results have been validated through interaction with stakeholders during a series of workshops.
Findings
The results show the identification of a series of sectors, where climate policy is expected to focus in the future and the definition of 11 specific topics upon which knowledge gaps are expected to appear. Results on the identified knowledge needs are analysed and categorized by each prioritized main topic and compared with literature findings. Emphasis is identified to be placed on the topics of renewable energy, EU climate policy and international climate negotiations, which are the most popular ones, followed by energy policy and energy efficiency.
Originality/value
A key element of the approach is the consideration of key experts’ feedback on their specific area of expertise, instead of general public engagement, therefore leading to accurate results. Despite the fact that our approach was applied to a specific problem, the overall analysis could provide a framework for supporting applications in various problems in the field of priorities’ identification and even expanding to decision-making problems.
Keywords
Citation
Karakosta, C., Flamos, A. and Forouli, A. (2018), "Identification of climate policy knowledge needs: a stakeholders consultation approach", International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 772-795. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2017-0117
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018, Charikleia Karakosta, Alexandros Flamos and Aikaterini Forouli.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
The international community’s activity has been currently made more intense towards a collective response to climate change (Droge and Spencer, 2015). A historic climate agreement has been made at COP21. However, in order the Agreement to be put into effect and its overall objective, which is to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C, to be reached, it is necessary to apply significant effort at both national and international level [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2015b].
Developed countries face a great challenge in restructuring their industrialized economy into a decarbonized system and adopting new consumption and production patterns. At the other end of the spectrum, developing economies have the concern that a low-carbon-oriented route might jeopardize their economic development aspirations and endanger their efforts to escape poverty. Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that outline the post-2020 climate actions that parties plan to take under a new international agreement are being prepared and submitted (UNFCCC, 2015a). The way in which climate change measures should be embedded in domestic economic, environmental and social priorities, however, is not strictly defined.
Over the NDC preparation process, it has been highlighted that many capacity and knowledge gaps exist. Specifically, these are connected with the definition of technical options for increased mitigation effort, the understanding of finance and investment needs and more generally with the need to develop institutional capacities. International bilateral and multilateral cooperation is capable of playing a key role in advocating the different activities related to NDC review and implementation, and the associated processes. Apart from direct country support and knowledge-sharing activities, peer-to-peer learning and also the amenity of dialogue and constructive expert reviews are capable of being helpful.
However, as countries focus and align their endeavours towards the achievement of a binding global agreement on climate, the constantly changing political scenery of climate negotiations imposes the need to provide policymakers with solid and accurate knowledge (Karakosta, Doukas and Psarras, 2010a). The internationally shifting policy scenery creates uncertainties about the shape of future policies and this could have an impact on European Union (EU) policy and decision makers. EU policymakers face uncertainties regarding different possible international climate policy scenarios and the impacts they could involve in EU society, business, member states and EU wholly, in relation to economy, society and the environment (Moarif, 2015). An evidence-based approach is needed to enable policymakers deliberate on these different scenarios and even obtain the knowledge from design of climate policies globally. Consequently, the information exchange about climate policy and the transferance of knowledge among stakeholders should be facilitated to provide clear comprehension of current regimes, their possible directions, implications and consequences and to make them able to take well-informed, consolidated decisions based on current reliable facts (Ecologic Institute, 2014; Doukas et al., 2010; Karakosta et al., 2011).
The first step of achieving such a cause is the identification of stakeholders’ knowledge needs, concerning both knowledge gaps and also knowledge presentation demands. Knowledge gaps can mean that there is either no cognizance of existing knowledge or no actual presence of scientific analysis concerning an issue.
This paper presents a methodology for the identification of knowledge gaps on insinuations of possible directions of EU and international climate policies, through a participatory process of highly experienced stakeholders’ engagement. This participatory procedure allows the identification of a series of sectors, where climate policy is expected to focus in the future, and the definition of specific topics upon which knowledge gaps are expected to appear. A key element of this approach is the consideration of key stakeholders, involved directly or indirectly in progress policymaking and capable of providing feedback on their specific area of expertise, therefore leading to more accurate results.
Following this introductory section of the paper, a literature review is provided on the integration of participatory processes in knowledge need identification. The proposed methodological approach is then presented, offering a step-by-step analysis of the successive stages. Results deriving from the methodology application are outlined, as well as relevant further discussion, whereas conclusions are drawn at the final section of the paper.
2. Integration of participatory processes in knowledge need identification
The element of active involvement of a group of people in the process of decision-making constitutes the core characteristic of a participatory approach. The synthesis of the group varies depending on the topic addressed and can be comprised by regular citizens, experts, government members, industry representatives or stakeholders of any kind with an interest in specific policies (Weaver and Cousins, 2007).
Participation of stakeholders consists in the process of affecting and sharing control over certain initiatives, as well as the decisions and resources that influence them [African Development Bank (ADB), 2001]. According to the aim of the approach, stakeholders can participate at different levels. The objective of the process could be simple conveyance of knowledge that would imply a one-way participation, or consultation, which requires bi-directional participation. It could also be the fostering of active participation, calling for a partnership in which all interested parties would actively debate (Slocum, 2003).
Therefore, a participatory process initially contains the identification of suitable stakeholders and relevant information provision. In the case that multi-directional participation is desired, the researcher should gather stakeholders’ feedback and listen to their beliefs (their opinions) and involve them in the decision-making process. The results would then contribute to their capacity building, rendering them capable of managing their own self-development [African Development Bank (ADB), 2001]. As validated by Krywkow and Hare (2008), four main phases can be recognized in participatory processes:
preparation, including the analysis of the problem and the stakeholder layer, as well as the development of a draft plan of the participatory process;
publication, during which stakeholders become initially familiar with the problem and the plan;
dialogue, through which stakeholders are provided with more solid information and contribute their knowledge and additional input on unraised issues; and
response, closing the process by educating participants and validating the results.
According to Pedrosa and Guimarães Pereira (2006), participatory approaches can be useful tools in facilitating a wide range of different purposes. First, they can effectively frame the identified problems and map the associated causes and effects, as well as possible future actions and developments, based on stakeholders’ opinions. Their application can also improve available information, facilitate communication and support participation towards knowledge production, as well as enhance policymaking with views that may not have been taken into account. The participation of multidisciplinary stakeholders also offers diversity to the analysis, as people characterized by different levels of expertise and of various backgrounds are represented and taken into consideration. Participatory approaches can also lead to the optimisation of existing processes in the field of learning, by making stakeholders aware of risks and possible implications of the situation under examination and by pointing out knowledge gaps and limitations (Karakosta et al., 2007; Karakosta et al., 2010b).
Participatory processes have been widely applied on a diverse range of topics and problems, deriving from different fields of research. Such topics may range from assessing ethical aspects of certain activities, fostering dialogue among stakeholders of different groups (Kaiser and Forsberg, 2001), to the improvement of working by engaging workers in participatory ergonomic processes (Laitinen et al., 1998).
Regarding climate and environmental issues, Scholza et al. (2004) applied participatory analysis to integrate local ecological knowledge into marine protected area policy planning processes. Indicators of progress monitoring in the field of sustainable development have been identified through participatory process application (Chiranjeewee and Harald, 2012), whereas participation of stakeholders has also been used for the identification and prioritisation of policy-relevant research questions in the management of natural resource (Petrokofsky et al., 2010).
In the field of knowledge need identification, a limited number of studies that integrate participatory approaches have been developed. Indicatively, Palacios-Agundez et al. (2014) defined a knowledge gap on the synergies and exchanges between biodiversity and carbon storage, during a participatory procedure conducted to cause the development of a community vision for a sustainable future of a region. Dicks et al. (2013) engaged representative participants from industry, environmental non-profit organizations (NGOs) and nature conservation agencies into a collaborative exercise of identifying knowledge needs regarding insect conservation in the UK. An extensive list of knowledge needs was initially developed and later collaboratively refined and narrowed-down through a three-stage participatory process, producing the final top priority knowledge needs. A participatory methodology has also been developed in the context of a collaboration among UNFCCC, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2010), the Global Adaptation Network and the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture towards the identification and prioritisation of knowledge gaps in climate change adaptation in the particular area of the Andes, by engaging multidisciplinary groups of stakeholders (Jarvis, 2015).
Knowledge needs and gaps, however, are more often identified by extensive literature review and use of existing bibliography, articles and reports on the field of study that is under examination (Frymus et al., 2013).
Particularly in the area of environmental policy, several participatory approaches have been implemented within the EU. However, to the best of our knowledge, never in the past had a participatory approach been designed and applied in such a format to identify knowledge needs and priorities on EU in the field of international climate policy implications, by consulting with key experts involved in the process of policymaking itself. The participatory approach developed in this paper uses tools, such as questionnaires and structured interviews with identified knowledgeable experts, so as to derive preliminary results on key knowledge needs on climate policy implications, after analysing the feedback acquired. The results are then presented to stakeholders during thematic workshops and validated through the sessions.
3. Methodological approach
3.1 Overview
The methodological framework introduced by this paper consists of a series of concurrent and consecutive steps, as illustrated in Figure 1 and analysed in the following paragraphs. An initial desk analysis identified a variety of priority issues connected with climate policymaking that served as a starting point for the participatory process. In parallel, key stakeholders mapping was conducted to form a database of potential participants. Preparatory material was subsequently developed in the form of a questionnaire, to be completed individually by stakeholders and also to facilitate discussion during interviews. Stakeholders were then invited to partake in the procedure and their interest was confirmed. Simultaneously, self-filling of questionnaires and conduction of interviews took place. Feedback analysis provided preliminary results that were displayed to selected stakeholders throughout thematic workshops conducted within the framework of the EU-FP7 “Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy implications (POLIMP)” project (Karakosta et al., 2014). Results reviewed and validated through the workshops led to the identification of a finalized set of knowledge needs on EU climate policy consequences (Karakosta and Flamos, 2016).
3.2 Desk analysis: initial key topics identification
The identification of a range of knowledge gaps was conducted for a series of issues of priority, connected with climate policymaking.The final determination of these issues was achieved in collaboration with stakeholders and through their participation. However, a range of priority issues had to be initially set as a starting point for discussion. A desk analysis including extensive literature review, as well as close monitoring of current developments in climate policy, led to the identification of eleven main topics, constituting an initial thematic area, based on which, the knowledge gap identification procedure was structured.
Further examination on current policy developments on the above main topics and of possible projections of their future development published or estimated enabled the recognition of further possible issues of core importance and interest. A total of 30 relevant issues of interest were identified, while four to six corresponded to each main topic. Several issues appeared in more than one topic. The relevant issues of interest and their adjacency to the main topics of interest identified are presented in Table I.
3.3 Stakeholders mapping
Selecting the appropriate stakeholders is vital for the result of any participatory procedure (Kok et al., 2007). Therefore, it was considered necessary to include a wide stakeholders’ range representing all four groups suggested as essential for participatory procedures: policymakers, business representives, citizens and experts (van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002).
The list of stakeholders was drawn up by the contact database compiled within the framework of the POLIMP project. This fact ensured that selected participants would have active involvement in the climate policy field and would be directly or indirectly impacted by the future direction of international climate policymaking and the way it affects EU climate policymaking.
The first step towards the creation of the final stakeholders’ list was the categorisation of POLIMP stakeholder groups in relation to their knowledge function. This categorisation is presented in the Table II. These categories are function-based, and therefore not mutually exclusive. It must be indicated that there might be an overlap between entities identified with respective categories, e.g. umbrella organisations in business or NGOs provide both the second and third functions (users and communicators). The stakeholders’ engagement plan of this paper concentrates on the first two categories, “knowledge providers” and “knowledge users”.
The next step followed a portfolio approach based on combination of different modes of stakeholder consultation to fit for different purposes and for different target groups. This approach enabled our research to have an extensive coverage of regions/countries as well as sectors. It was assumed to target at the most relevant sectors for the selected topic to maximise the impacts. Reflecting on the original focus of the paper, most of the stakeholders invited to the consultation process were based on climate change mitigation policy: sectoral orientation towards “energy production and distribution”, “energy-intensive industry (e.g. iron and steel, cement, chemical, metal and paper and pulp)”, and to a less extent “finance and trading (e.g. investors and market traders)”. The format of regional or national dialogue allowed complementing the above sectoral coverage with those sectors that are of strategic importance to the targeted countries.
The final interviews were conducted involving the following, non-exhaustive list of groups of stakeholders:
UNFCCC Secretariat;
EU DG Research and Innovation;
Government officials;
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission;
EU DG Environment and DG CLIMA officials;
Energy producing and/or distributing companies;
Entities producing sustainable environmental technologies;
Small- and medium-sized enterprises;
Research institutes in the different related specialised fields; and
Consumers/end users of energy (and/or their representing organisation).
3.4 Preparation of material
In this paper, the suggested methodology involves the preparation of a tailor-made questionnaire for the identification of knowledge gaps regarding climate policy implications for the EU. This questionnaire was used both for direct completion by stakeholders and as a guide for the conduction of bilateral interviews. It is envigased that this combination of the two methods also combines the most of their advantages. The questionnaire was also developed in an online form to facilitate stakeholders in their responses and also to serve as preparatory material for interviewess who wished to be informed on the interview structure beforehand. In addition, the online completed form enabled the easier and more credible analysis of responses, with the use of online analytics tools.
The questionnaire initially contained some general questions about the frequency with which additional information is needed to help stakeholders in their work, the exact task they need it for, as well as their success in finding it. The second section of the questionnaire targeted to achieve better understanding on the way interested parties search for additional information and on how they intend on using it.
The third and main part of the questionnaire was dedicated to the knowledge needs themselves and followed a top-down approach to specify as much as possible existing knowledge needs. As previously mentioned, the identification of knowledge needs was structured on 11 main topics, defined by literature review. Stakeholders are, at this stage, requested to declare their area of expertise, by choosing one or two out of the 11 main topics.
For each of these main topics, a series of relevant issues (four to six) was presented, as these were identified in Table I. Stakeholders had to select two to three of these issues that they consider of great importance and that they envision to personally focus on the most in the next years. At this point, stakeholders were asked to contribute by specifying the additional information they expect to be seeking for per selected issue and to rate a predefined list of subtopics per issue on a scale of 0 to 5, according to the extent that they personally expect to be seeking additional information on. A zero response corresponded to “I will not need additional information about this” while a five meant, “I expect to need a high amount of additional information about this”.
The abovementioned top-down session is illustrated in Figure 2.
During the final session, stakeholders were asked to express their point of view on a series of questions regarding knowledge needs in society as a whole. Main subjects concerned their opinion on whether lack of knowledge impedes policy design, as well as whether they personally acknowledge the existence of real gaps in scientific knowledge. The session concluded with the provision of some additional information of personal and professional nature.
3.5 Stakeholders engagement and participation
Identified key stakeholders were invited to collaborate and provide their insights through their participation in interviews or by filling in the online questionnaire. An initial contact by e-mail was followed by an official invitation upon positive reply, accompanied by relative introductory and informative material.
Interviews were conducted with 48 stakeholders, whereas 27 stakeholders filled in the online questionnaire. The structure of the interviews and the online questionnaire was similar. Considering the nature of both methods, the expert interviews focussed more on qualitative information and further analysis with regard to the methods for searching information, the needs for types of knowledge presentations and the knowledge needs themselves. On the other hand, the online questionnaire resulted in more quantitative data, identifying the range of knowledge needs that exists among stakeholders.
Stakeholders that contributed to the process came from 14 different member states of the EU, whereas 13 per cent came from countries outside the EU. Participants from Western Europe populated 22 per cent of the sample, whereas 29 per cent were from Central and Eastern Europe and the rest 37 per cent from the southern part of the continent. Although the main target audience constituted of policymakers within the EU, it is recognized that stakeholders from non-EU countries can also impact policy design at an EU and wider level. From a demographic point of view, the sample was populated by women at a 32 per cent rate. The vast majority of participants were between 30 and 50 years old, whereas 7 per cent was younger and 14 per cent older than that age group.
The stakeholders are employed at different types of organisations. Of note, 32 per cent of the respondents work for NGOs and 26 per cent for governments at European, member state level or at subnational level. A further 21 per cent is occupied in the business sector (including commercial consultancies), whereas 12 per cent is employed by research and institutions. The remaining 9 per cent works for other types of organisations.
3.6 Feedback analysis
Responses to interviews, as well as questionnaire submissions, were collected and statistically analysed to identify knowledge needs and derive conclusions. Regarding the stakeholders’ area of expertise, it was observed that “renewable energy” and “EU climate policy” were the most popular main topics, followed by “international climate negotiations”, “energy policy” and “energy efficiency”. The full configuration of selected areas of expertise is illustrated in Figure 3.
After narrowing down the areas of expertise that were mostly selected, the most popular relevant issues per main topic were identified. Issues with little or no selection by stakeholders were discarded, as it was considered that stakeholders would not be focusing on these in the following years. For the most popular relevant issues, several subtopics were rated on a scale of 0 to 5, according to the extent to which stakeholders expect to be searching for additional information on. Scores per subtopic were calculated, by multiplying each score of the scale with the frequency it was selected by stakeholders. An aggregated score derived from this procedure, according to which subtopics with the highest scores were collected and listed. This list of subtopics within issues of areas of expertise was identified as knowledge needs at a preliminary level.
However, to consider the list finalized, a verification of results was necessary. It was decided to validate these preliminary results through consolidation with stakeholders in thematic workshops, organized within the framework of the POLIMP project. The procedure is described in detail in the following paragraph.
3.7 Validation and verification of results through workshops
A workshop goes beyond information sharing to resolve differences, build consensus, pursue solutions, take decisions and plan actions (World Bank, 1996). In the case of the proposed methodology, preliminary results were verified and refined according to the feedback provided during three thematic workshops. The workshops were organized within the framework of the POLIMP project and each of those was dedicated to one of the three climate policy fields: “financing for low-carbon technology – the renewable energy example”, “public acceptance of technology options and risk management” and “the role for emissions trading in low-carbon technology deployment”.
The main target groups of these workshops were knowledge providers and users (Table II). In principle, participation in the workshops was provided on invitation only. The list of invited participants consisted of EU and member states policymakers, industry and business representatives, researchers from academia and think-tanks, representatives of NGOs and other stakeholder groups. The size of workshops varied, depending on the timing and topics discussed, and ranged from 30 to 50 participants. A total of 144 stakeholders joined the three thematic workshops. For selecting invited participants, organisers took into account the geographic and sector groupings that were most relevant to the chosen topic on the one hand, and the representation of knowledge providers (mainly technical experts and researchers) and knowledge users (mainly policymakers and market participants) on the other hand. The exact proportion of workshops’ participant per field of activity is briefly presented in Figure 4.
The stakeholder workshops had the primary aim of stock-taking and gaining access to the expertise of stakeholders on technical issues from a wide variety of different backgrounds. In these workshops, the state-of-the art has been briefly presented to negotiators as well as stakeholders at the UN, EU or member state levels. Then the knowledge needs in each topic were presented. Precisely, stakeholders were presented with the results per thematic area during special sessions and were encouraged to study them, comment on them and give a final overview. Results were subsequently rephrased or modified when considered necessary, while the option of adding or eliminating certain subtopics was considered. The emerging list of results was validated and finalized according to participants’ feedback.
4. Results
4.1 Key knowledge needs and priorities
The application of the methodology described in the previous section resulted in identifying a sequence of knowledge needs and priorities per area of expertise. The finalized outcomes, as these were defined after the validation procedure through workshops, are displayed in the main thematic area in Table III.
Results on the identified knowledge needs are analysed in the following subsections categorized by each prioritized main topic. These knowledge gaps resulted after analysing stakeholders’ input on the bilateral interviews and validating their perspectives through the thematic workshops.
4.1.1 Renewable energy.
Of note, 25 per cent of the stakeholders have chosen renewable energy as area of expertise, and thus contributed in the identification of needs in this field of study. As it emerges from their input, the cost development of renewable energy technologies is the main knowledge domain that needs to be further discussed and analysed. The term of cost development includes also the impact of policies on costs, and the way in which innovation can be triggered through policy. Other important knowledge needs with relation to the costs and benefits of renewables comprise the effects on job potential and energy market price signals.
Regarding support schemes and incentives for renewables, such as feed-in tariffs, the main knowledge gaps are related to the cost-effectiveness of these schemes. What is important to be next identified is the harmonisation of the different support systems for renewables, both within member states and across the EU.
Acceptance of renewables, energy grids and environmental impacts were chosen by considerably less stakeholders as relevant issues for the coming years. The explanation of why a business case is more expensive in relation to its non-monetary benefits, as well as the discussion of these benefits, were identified as necessary issues that need to be considered, when it comes to the acceptance of renewables. In the field of energy grids, it is of high importance for the stakeholders to foster discussion on the development of smart grids and balancing (facilitating a growing share of renewable energy in the grid). Regarding the environmental impacts of renewables, the use of rare earth and other inputs, and balancing between economic development and the protection of the environment are seen as the major knowledge needs.
4.1.2 European Union climate policy in general.
In addition, 18 per cent of the stakeholders selected EU climate policy in general as their area of expertise, recognising the post-2020 targets, the overall policy mix and the international context as main issues of interest for the upcoming years.
Similar to the case of renewable energy, also for post-2020 climate targets, the cost-effectiveness of these targets is an issue of special interest, which should be further discussed. Stakeholders are also interested in information regarding target sharing among EU member states. In addition, important knowledge needs are related to the ways in which the post-2020 targets interact with each other, as well as to the interaction of different climate policy instruments in general. A significant share of the stakeholders also expresses their need for further knowledge in carbon pricing instruments, including emissions trading systems and carbon taxation.
Considering the international context of the EU climate policy, stakeholders are looking for knowledge about initiatives and actions in other parts of the world, which need to be compared to the practices followed within the EU. Especially the comparison of EU with other major emitters is a knowledge field that lacks comprehensive analysis.
4.1.3 International climate negotiations.
A total of 13 per cent of the participating stakeholders offered their expertise and inputs in the area of international climate negotiations.
Main knowledge needs regarding climate change mitigation are related to target setting, specifically considering the type of the targets and the timescale of the targets. With regard to finance and mechanisms, stakeholders see innovative finance schemes, including new market mechanisms and other climate-finance generating mechanisms, along with public finance mechanisms and their application in a developing countries’ context as issues that require further and updated information.
An additional knowledge need is related to the proper vertical integration of different decision-making levels, especially when it comes to policies in different international, national and local levels.
4.1.4 Energy policy in general.
The area of expertise of energy policy was selected by 10 per cent of the stakeholders that identified the energy markets and costs as the most important issues for the coming three years. Issues regarding technological innovation, grids and security of supply were considered less important, whereas none of the stakeholders considered risks and uncertainty of energy policies as an issue worth analysing.
Stakeholders have identified a wide range of different knowledge needs within the aforementioned energy policy issues. The design of electricity markets, but also of capacity markets and the European internal energy markets was presented as a field were knowledge is deficient. Considering costs, stakeholders are mostly searching for knowledge related to energy price developments, both in Europe and in other world regions, and to the impacts and social dimensions of these developments. Finally, the knowledge needs regarding policies for technological innovation are mainly towards energy efficiency and renewables, whereas stakeholders have also indicated the integration of alternative energy indicators and systems for cost reduction.
4.1.5 Energy efficiency.
A total of 8 per cent of the interviewees and questionnaire respondents selected energy efficiency as one of their areas of expertise, with the most important issues for the coming years being the energy efficiency policy mix and its costs and benefits. Issues related to buildings, barriers and industry are seen as less important.
With regard to the energy efficiency policy mix, all stakeholders mention similar knowledge needs. They are interested in information about the effectiveness of the existing policy mix. Therefore, they are looking for best practice examples, case studies and reviews of specific policies, both in their own country and in other EU member states. Stakeholders also search for international benchmarks on policy incentives, for example to compare the impacts of standards and regulations as opposed to softer measures. Stakeholders are interested to learn more about possible energy-saving obligation schemes, and financing options for such schemes.
With regard to the costs and benefits of energy efficiency measures, stakeholders are mostly looking for data on the savings potential of different measures, and possibilities for accessing capital for the implementation of measures. Secondarily, stakeholders mention the potential for job creation through energy efficiency measures as a topic for which knowledge is required.
Some other knowledge needs that are mentioned with regard to energy efficiency include the costs of building refurbishment, techniques for improving the energy performance of existing buildings and legal and institutional barriers to the diffusion of energy efficiency measures.
4.1.6 Emissions trading.
Emissions trading has been selected by 7 per cent of interviewees and respondents as their area of expertise. None of these stakeholders has chosen the impacts of emissions trading schemes on technological innovation as an important issue for the coming years, but the implementation, costs and benefits, potential reform and international context of emissions trading were all seen as relevant issue for the next three years.
With regard to the implementation of emissions trading, stakeholders would need more knowledge on the further harmonisation of emissions trading schemes across the EU. Furthermore, major knowledge needs emerge especially regarding the price development of allowances under the emissions trading scheme of the European Union (EU-ETS). Stakeholders detect knowledge gaps on the effective price stabilisation mechanisms, backloading, lowering the 2020 emissions cap altogether and towards the change to the linear reduction factor after 2020.
Also, information with regard to impacts of possible changes to the rules for access to international credits is required. Stakeholders need more direct and organized information on the potential for and impacts of linking the EU-ETS to other schemes around the world, and therefore there is also an interest in the background and status of these other schemes. Finally, several stakeholders mention the situations with regard to international aviation and international shipping in relation to the EU-ETS as a knowledge need.
4.1.7 Financing.
The topic of financing was selected by 5 per cent of the stakeholders as their area of expertise. They identified financing needs and the international context of financing as the main issues for the coming years, followed by the financing policy mix. Since financing is a crosscutting issue with connections to virtually all of the other topics, these other areas of expertise should also be taken into account with regard to the knowledge needs about finance.
Regarding financing needs, stakeholders state that they need knowledge about incremental additional investment requirements in specific sectors. Specifically financing facilities for small- and medium-sized enterprises are mentioned as a topic that requires more knowledge. As indicated before, stakeholders also need information about access to capital for energy efficiency measures.
In an international context, stakeholders need information with regard to innovative finance schemes and ways to mobilise private financial flows. Also, information about the possibilities of financing projects through European funds is needed. One of the stakeholders mentioned that it would be useful if a “one-stop-shop” of financing options for sustainable projects were available.
4.1.8 Adaptation.
The area of expertise on adaptation had the same stakeholders’ participation as the topic of financing. The most important issue for the coming three years, chosen by all of the stakeholders, is mainstreaming of adaptation. Other relevant issues include costs and benefits of adaptation, public participation, evidence bases for policy decisions and financing instruments. Knowledge needs regarding these issues vary.
The stakeholders state to be searching information regarding the institutional and organisational setup of the mainstreaming of adaptation; how to design effective processes. Clear information on sectoral trade-offs is needed. Main point regarding costs and benefits of adaptation is the methodology for proving additionality of adaptation projects.
With regard to public participation, stakeholders are interested in best practices and effective tools for raising public awareness of climate change adaptation. In addition, regarding the evidence base for policy decisions, a main knowledge need is related to the indicators upon which policy decisions are based.
4.1.9 Agriculture and forestry.
Even less stakeholders, only 4 per cent of the whole sample, selected agriculture and forestry as their main work area. The stakeholders selected different issues as being important the coming years: the use of biomass for bioenergy, land use change, increasing farm efficiency and farmer support. Consumption patterns, including how the public influences agricultural practices, and the valuation of ecosystem services have not been selected as main issues for the next three years.
Regarding biomass, in addition to sustainability criteria, a knowledge need was identified related to ways of making biomass economically profitable, as opposed to only using biomass for climate reasons. With regard to land use change, factual information, including clear numbers and scale information, was identified as knowledge need. In addition, biochar, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and tropical deforestation in general are issues where stakeholders search information about.
The main knowledge needs regarding the increase of farm efficiency are related to carbon sequestration and fertiliser, manure and livestock management. Specifically, also the need of information about improving yield and efficiency of energy crops was mentioned. Stakeholders furthermore identify knowledge needs regarding farm advisory, and raising awareness about possible co-benefits development.
4.1.10 Industry.
The area of expertise industry was chosen by 4 per cent interviewees and respondents. The main issue for the coming years is said to be the costs and benefits of climate-related developments in the industrial sector. Other relevant issues include the policy mix for industries, the potential for certain measures, and the international context. None of the stakeholders selected green information technology as main issue for the coming years, although the related smart grids were selected as a main knowledge need within the topic of renewables.
The main knowledge need identified by the stakeholders, regarding the costs and benefits issue, is related to competitiveness. Information is required about impacts of policies and measures, such as carbon leakage. Stakeholders also mention that knowledge is required with regard to greenhouse gas reduction potentials and costs as part of a sectoral innovation scope.
Other knowledge needs that are identified by some of the stakeholders include information about the potential of recycling in the industrial sector, the impacts of the emissions trading scheme on technological innovation and a comprehensive international comparison of regulations and programmes for industries.
4.1.11 Transport.
A minority of stakeholders, namely, only 1 per cent of the involved stakeholders, has identified transport as a main area of expertise. The knowledge needs that are selected within this topic may therefore not be representative. The main issues for the coming years identified by this stakeholder include technological innovation as well as the transport policy mix. Knowledge needs identified are centred on the increase of efficiency through intelligent transport systems, and efficient integration of modal networks.
4.2 Discussion
A literature review was conducted to compare the results to the key needs provided by relative previous research on each prioritized main topic. In their effort to address the knowledge needs of policymakers, Geels et al. (2016) identified different policy-relevant criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, socio-political feasibility, social acceptance and legitimacy and flexibility.
Millinger and Thran (2016) outlined how different feedstock cost developments affect the competitiveness between biofuels. In 2014, the International Renewable Energy Agency realized the difficulty in accounting the dynamic cost developments as technologies get deployed over time (Ruud et al., 2015). Resch et al. (2004) analysed the ambiguous role of dynamic cost developments in deriving the optimal time-path for policy instruments. Johnston et al. (2008) discussed the requirements for least-cost development and efficient operation. Suna and Resch (2016) stated that for the economic comparison of renewable technologies and for estimating their future role in energy supply, it is important to analyse their historical cost developments.
Apergis and Apergis (2017) claimed that it is highly useful to understand the dynamic spillovers across renewable energy prices, the diffusion of technologies in relevance to renewable energy and potentially their impact on GDP growth. Energy prices are generally subject to various economic and social framework conditions, the geopolitical situation and resource availability, which influence energy supply and demand (POLIMP, 2014).
Howell et al. (2017) stated that little research applies in approaches, such as “smart grid”, “microgrid”, “virtual power plant” and “multi-energy system”. In addition, Blarke and Jenkins (2013) investigated SuperGrid and SmartGrid pathways for modernizing the electricity architecture, highlighting their importance in the long-term energy system design.
Kerr et al. (2017) tried to consider how different benefits have been used within the overall rationale for energy efficient retrofit policy. Grueneich (2015) presented key challenges that must be overcome to attain the “next level of energy efficiency”, namely, increasing the magnitude of savings, diversifying energy efficiency resources, measuring and ensuring the persistence of energy efficiency savings, integrating energy efficiency savings with a carbon reduction framework and understanding and valuing energy efficiency as part of an evolving grid. Rosenow and Bayer (2017) specifically reviewed the costs and benefits of energy efficiency obligations, a key policy instrument to achieve energy efficiency.
Liu et al. (2017) concluded that more tax incentives and economic benefits should be created to support greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation. Olubunmi et al. (2016) reviewed green building incentives, DeShazo et al. (2017) focused on economic incentives on transport, whereas Curtin et al. (2017) gathered financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low-carbon technologies. Crago and Chernyakhovskiy (2017) identified a range of initiatives aiming at increasing the share of solar generated electricity, whereas Punda et al. (2017) reviewed the current state of preferential tariffs for RES.
Sustainable agriculture and forestry has been set as a priority objective of European policy. Appropriate knowledge, tools, services and innovations are said as necessary to support more productive, environmentally friendly resource-efficient agriculture (EC, European Comission, 2013). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report of 2010 (Hall and Dorai, 2010) illustrated the circumstances of the use of innovation in sustainable agricultural production, and drew out conclusions about how policy and market approaches could better enable the contribution of innovation to greener growth.
Based on United Nations’ research in the field of renewable energy in industrial applications (2011), it comes that although renewable energy has received a good deal of attention for power generation and for residential applications, its use in industry has attracted much less attention. Taibia et al. (2012) also shared the view that insufficient attention has been paid to the potential of renewable energy resources in industrial applications. Wohlgemuth and Monga (2008) suggested that solar and biomass-based technologies have very considerable technical potential to meet in a sustainable way the growing energy needs of many industrial enterprises, especially for small- and medium-scale enterprises in developing countries.
A UK parliament publication (2015) focused on technologies for the decarbonisation of transport, and highlighted technological constraints that limit their growth, including a lack of widespread charging infrastructure, the high costs of batteries and alternative fuels and the limited options for decarbonising long-distance aviation and shipping. Chapman (2006) outlined that there is a myriad of transport technology alternatives, such as biofuels, natural gas, hydrogen and electric motors (Sperling, 2003; Maclean, 2004). However, there is a need for governments to fund research on them (DfT, 2006). In their paper, Shokrzadeh and Bibeau (2016) pointed out that to achieve the CO2 reduction target in transport sector (IEA, 2012), electrification of transportation is a promising solution (Gonzalez et al., 2015). Towards this direction, automakers have started mass production of new technologies, such as plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles, collectively known as plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) (Natural Resources Canada, 2010). However, high cost of traction batteries of PEVs and public perception of electric mobility are among the challenges that should be addressed as Chen et al. (2015) noticed.
As it can easily be presumed from the literature, needs and trends identified are in line with the outcomes resulted from the approach followed, and therefore this provides a validity to the proposed methodological framework.
The added value of the paper is that it proposes a comprehensive methodological framework that effectively deploys stakeholders input and feedback, and results in a valid identification of knowledge needs in a wide variety of topics in the area of climate policy. The novelty of the proposed approach is the incorporation of the stakeholders’ perspective to the procedure of needs identification, and the provision of a thorough review of climate policy needs per each of eleven key thematic fields that were previously partially analysed in literature. In addition, the paper concludes on major knowledge needs that were not previously presented in the existing literature. Examples of such needs are the impact of policies on costs, the relation between innovation and policy, best practice examples, case studies and reviews of specific policies in the field of energy efficiency and specific needs on target setting and sharing (Table IV).
5. Conclusions
A big variety of possible directions and potential consequences of climate policies on EU level are created by the continuous changing and multi-faceted political scenery of negotiations; therefore, solid policy and decision-making are hindered. A further access to enhanced knowledge transfer and the use of policy and decision makers is required, to make them able to develop clear understanding of current regimes, their possible directions and consequences and to support them in making well-informed, consolidated decisions based on current reliable facts.
An analysis is supplied by this paper, based on the elaboration of stakeholders’ assessment that resulted in the identification and prioritisation of a series of knowledge gaps within main climate policy-related topics.
The methodological framework introduced a participatory process of key experts’ engagement, involved directly or indirectly in the procedure of policymaking. A key element of the approach is the consideration of highly experienced stakeholders’ feedback on their specific area of expertise, instead of general public engagement, therefore leading to more accurate results. A range of priority issues was initially identified through desk analysis and key stakeholders were selected and invited to partake in the process. A questionnaire was developed to serve as a guide for expert interviews or for direct completion by stakeholders through an online form. A total of 48 bilateral interviews were conducted, whereas 27 questionnaires were submitted by stakeholders and collected for analysis. Preliminary results were validated through interaction with stakeholders during a series of workshops and the final knowledge needs emerged as an outcome.
Emphasis was identified to be placed on the topics of renewable energy, EU climate policy and international climate negotiations, which were the most popular ones, followed by energy policy and energy efficiency. The issue of cost-effectiveness was generally considered as a priority aspect of interest within the main areas of expertise, whereas the involved policy mix also raised concern among stakeholders. The results from the proposed approach can be considered as realistic, as they were subsequently validated through a series of workshops, where stakeholders reflected upon the derived list of knowledge needs.
Despite the fact that our approach was applied to a specific problem, the overall analysis could provide a framework for supporting applications in various problems in the field of priorities’ identification and even expanding to decision-making problems. Future research efforts could therefore be placed on the stakeholders’ participating in the evaluation and selection of policy pathways and sustainability strategies, in the process of climate policy decision-making and even spread to the assessment of the public acceptance of different schemes identified.
This research also outlines some obstacles encountered when implementing participatory processes that could be overcome to increase the method’s overall effectiveness. As a participatory approach is based on the engagement and knowledge of key stakeholders, its success and quality of results are highly connected to the stakeholders’ availability and willingness to participate. Thus, participating stakeholders must be at first clearly defined. Concerning the study’s findings, intense effort for further research should be particularly placed in the fields of transport, industry and agriculture and forestry, where stakeholders’ participation was limited. In addition, and to achieve appropriate and high-quality data, attempts for future research must be based on flexible participatory approaches, which could be quickly adapted to different contexts, so as to fit to participants’ needs and elicit the most appropriate information.
Acknowledgments
The paper is based on research implemented in the framework of the project “POLIMP – Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy implications”. This project has been funded by the (this project has received funding from the) European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No 603847. Additional funds for research in this area have been provided by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology of Greece. The paper’s content is the authors’ responsibility solely and does not necessarily reflect the views of the EC. The authors wish to thank all POLIMP partners for their invaluable contribution, helpful remarks and productive observations for this work to be developed.
Figures
Main topics and relevant issues of interest
| Main topics | Relevant issues | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renewable energy | Support systems | Costs and benefits | Acceptance | Grids | Environment impacts | |
| Energy efficiency | Policy mix | Costs and benefits | Buildings | Industry | Barriers | |
| Transport | Technology and Innovation | Costs and benefits | Policy mix | Barriers | Drivers | |
| Emissions trading | Implementation | Costs and benefits | Technology innovation | Reform of EU-ETS | International context | |
| Industry | Policy mix | Costs and benefits | Green IT | Potential | International context | |
| Adaptation | Financing instruments | Mainstreaming | Costs and benefits | Public Participation | Evidence base | |
| Agriculture and forestry | Bioenergy and biomass use | Land use Change | Consumption patterns | Valuing ecosystem services | Increasing farm efficiency | Support |
| Financing | Financing needs | Costs and benefits | Policy mix | International context | ||
| International climate negotiations | Mitigation | Finance | Mechanisms | Adaptation | Regime and institutions | |
| Energy policy | Energy markets | Costs and benefits | Technology and innovation | Grids | Security of supply | Risks and uncertainty |
| EU climate policy | Post-2020 targets | Costs and benefits | Policy mix | Link to energy policy | International context | |
Source: Ecologic Institute (2014)
Stakeholders groups
| Knowledge functions | Activities | Examples of entities |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge providers | Research-oriented (e.g. desk work, laboratory and field work) | International organisations/institutions (UNFCCC secretariat, OECD/IEA); Joint Research Centre (JRC); national and non-governmental research institutes; business; NGOs |
| Knowledge users/ implementers |
Decision- and implementation-oriented (e.g. management, administration and lobbying/advocacy) | EU institutions (Commission, Parliament, Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions); EU member states (including ministries and political parties); local and regional governments; business sector representatives (trade associations); NGOs; UNFCCC parties (primarily for UNFCCC side-events) |
| Communicators | Intermediary and catalysing (e.g. networking and mass-mailing) | Media, umbrella organisations in business or NGOs |
Source: Fujiwara (2015)
Key knowledge needs and priorities
| Prioritized main topics | Knowledge needs |
|---|---|
| Renewable energy | Cost-effectiveness of support schemes for renewable energy Costs development of renewable energy technologies Harmonisation of support schemes for renewables within and across EU member states Smart grids |
| Emissions trading | Further harmonisation of emissions trading scheme implementation across the EU Price stabilisation mechanisms, backloading, changes to the linear reduction factor Potential for and impacts of links to other emissions trading schemes around the world |
| EU climate policy | Interaction of different climate policy instruments and different targets Cost-effectiveness of targets Carbon-pricing instruments (ETS, taxation) Actions in other parts of the world, compared to the European Union |
| Financing | Incremental additional investment required in specific sectors Mobilisation of private financial flows Innovative finance schemes in an international context |
| International climate negotiations | Climate finance generating mechanisms, innovative climate finance schemes Types and timescales of climate change mitigation targets Vertical integration between decision-making levels |
| Agriculture and forestry | Sustainability criteria for biomass Indirect land use and LULUCF accounting Carbon sequestration Fertiliser, manure and livestock management |
| Energy policy | Electricity market design Energy price developments in different world regions, and its impacts |
| Industry | Competitiveness: carbon leakage impacts and related exemptions Sectoral innovation scope, reduction potential and costs |
| Energy efficiency | Effectiveness of existing energy efficiency policy Possible energy saving obligation schemes and financing options Energy efficiency measures savings potential Access to capital for energy efficiency measures |
| Adaptation | Institutional setup and organisation of mainstreaming of adaptation Methodologies for estimation of costs and benefits of adaptation measures Effective tools and best practices for raising public awareness and public participation Indicators for the evidence base for adaptation policy decisions |
| Transport | Increasing efficiency through intelligent transport systems Efficient integration of modal networks |
Source: Ecologic Institute (2014)
Literature review of knowledge needs and priorities
| Prioritized main topics | Reference | Knowledge needs and priorities |
|---|---|---|
| Renewable energy | Geels et al. (2016) | Cost-effectiveness socio-political feasibility, social acceptance and legitimacy, flexibility |
| Millinger and Thran (2016) | Feedstock cost developments | |
| Ruud et al. 2015 | Renewable technologies dynamic cost developments over time | |
| Resch et al. (2004) | Dynamic cost developments for optimal policy instruments time path | |
| Johnston et al. (2008) | Requirements for least-cost development and efficient operation | |
| Suna and Resch (2016) | Renewable technologies historical cost developments for their economic comparison and role in energy supply | |
| Apergis and Apergis (2017) | Dynamic spillovers across renewable energy prices, diffusion of technologies in relevance to renewable energy, RES impact on GDP growth | |
| POLIMP (2014) | Impact of economic and social framework conditions, the geopolitical situation, resource availability on energy prices | |
| Howell et al. (2017) | Research on “smart grid”, “microgrid”, “virtual power plant” and “multi-energy system” | |
| Blarke and Jenkins (2013) | SuperGrid and SmartGrid pathways for modernizing the electricity architecture | |
| Financing | Liu et al. (2017) | Need of tax incentives and economic benefits to support GHG emissions mitigation |
| Olubunmi et al. (2016) | Green building incentives | |
| DeShazo et al. (2017) | Economic incentives on transport | |
| Curtin et al. (2017) | Financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low carbon technologies | |
| Crago and Chernyakhovskiy (2017) | Initiatives aiming at increasing the share of solar generated electricity in the US energy mix | |
| Punda et al. (2017) | Current state of preferential tariffs for RES in countries of southeast Europe | |
| Agriculture and forestry | EC, European Commission (2013) | Appropriate knowledge, tools, services and innovations for productive, environmentally friendly resource-efficient and resilient agriculture Research and innovation for integrating agronomic and environmental goals into sustainable production |
| OECD (2010) | Agricultural innovation and application in sustainable agricultural production Policy and market approaches for greener growth |
|
| Industry | United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2011) | Renewable energy in industrial applications, potential of renewable technologies and factors for successful contribution |
| Taibia et al. (2012) | Development of a detailed technology roadmap to explore the potential of renewable energy resources in industrial applications | |
| Wohlgemuth and Monga (2008) | Solar and biomass-based technologies’ potential for small- and medium-scale enterprises in developing countries | |
| Energy efficiency | Kerr et al. (2017) | Energy efficiency policy within a framework of a variety of different benefits Benefits exploitation within the overall rationale for energy efficient retrofit policy in different contexts |
| Grueneich (2015) | Increasing the magnitude of savings Diversifying energy efficiency resources Measuring and ensuring the persistence of energy efficiency savings Integrating energy efficiency savings with a carbon reduction framework Understanding and valuing energy efficiency as part of an evolving grid |
|
| Rosenow and Bayer (2017) | Costs and benefits of Energy Efficiency Obligations | |
| Transport | UK parliament (2015) | Technological constraints, limited options for decarbonising long-distance aviation and shipping |
| Chapman (2006) | Consideration of biofuels, natural gas, hydrogen and electric motors as options for renewable transport | |
| DfT (2006) | Need of governments’ fund for research and development of alternative fuels | |
| Shokrzadeh and Bibeau (2016) | Electrification of transportation to achieve CO2 reductions goals | |
| Natural Resources Canada (2010) | Higher fuel efficiency and extended electric range Technologies, such as plug-in electric vehicles | |
| Chen et al. (2015) | High cost of traction batteries of PEVs and public perception of electric mobility |
References
African Development Bank (ADB) (2001), Handbook on Stakeholder Consultation and Participation in ADB Operations, Environment and Sustainable Development Unit 2001.
Apergis, E. and Apergis, N. (2017), “The role of rare earth prices in renewable energy consumption: the actual driver for a renewable energy world”, Energy Economics, Vol. 62, pp. 33-42.
Blarke, M.B. and Jenkins, B.M. (2013), “Supergrid or smartgrid: competing strategies for large-scale integration of intermittent renewables?”, Energy Policy, Vol. 58, pp. 381-390.
Chapman, L. (2006), “Transport and climate change: a review”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 354-367.
Chen, F., Taylor, N. and Kringos, N. (2015), “Electrification of roads: opportunities and challenges”, Applied Energy, Vol. 150 No. 3, pp. 109-119.
Chiranjeewee, K. and Harald, V. (2012), “Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal”, Forestry, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 145-158.
Crago, C.l. and Chernyakhovskiy, I. (2017), “Are policy incentives for solar power effective? Evidence from residential installations in the northeast”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 81, pp. 132-151.
Curtin, J., McInerney, C. and Gallachóir, B.O. (2017), “Financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low-carbon technologies: a systematic literature review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 75, pp. 534-547.
DeShazo, J.R., Sheldon, T. and Carson, R. (2017), “Designing policy incentives for cleaner technologies: lessons from California’s plug-in electric vehicle rebate program”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 84, pp. 18-43.
DfT (2006), “Visioning and backcasting for UK transport policy (VIBAT)”, Stage 3 Report: Policy Packaging and Pathways, Department for Transport, Crown Copyright 2006, p. 77.
Dicks, L.V., Abrahams, A., Atkinson, J., Biesmeijer, J., Bourn, N., Brown, C., Brown, M.J.F., Carvell, C., Connolly, C., Cresswell, J.E., Croft, P., Darvill, B., De Zylva, P., Effingham, P., Fountain, M., Goggin, A., Harding, D., Harding, T., Hartfield, C., Heard, M.S., Heathcote, R., Heaver, D., Holland, J., Howe, M., Hughes, B., Huxley, T., Kunin, W.E., Little, J., Mason, C., Memmott, J., Osborne, J., Pankhurst, T., Paxton, R.J., Pocock, M.J.O., Potts, S.G., Power, E.F., Raine, N.E., Ranelagh, E., Roberts, S., Saunders, R., Smith, K., Smith, R.M., Sutton, P., Tilley, L.A.N., Tinsley, A., Tonhasca, A., Vanbergen, A.J., Webster, S., Wilson, A. and Sutherland, W.J. (2013), “Identifying key knowledge needs for evidence-based conservation of wild insect pollinators: a collaborative cross-sectoral exercise”, Insect Conservation and Diversity, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 435-446.
Doukas, H., Flamos, A., Karakosta, C. and Psarras, J. (2010), “Establishment of a European energy policy think tank network: necessity or luxury?”, International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 221-238.
Droge, S. and Spencer, T. (2015), “The EU’s INDC and its contribution to a successful deal in Paris 2015”, EU Think Tank Platform for Paris 2015, Paper No 2, Centre of European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels.
EC, European Comission (2013), COUNCIL DECISION of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decisions 2006/971/EC, 2006/972/EC, 2006/973/EC, 2006/974/EC and 2006/975/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/743/EU).
Ecologic Institute (2014), “Report on knowledge needs and priorities”, Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy implications (POLIMP) project report D5.1, Ecologic Institute, available at: www.polimp.eu/images/results/D5.1_Report_on_knowledge_needs_and_priorities.pdf
Frymus, D., Kok, M., de Koning, K. and Quain, E. (2013), “Knowledge gaps and a need based Global Research agenda by 2015”, Community Health Workers and Universal Health Coverage Working paper, Geneva, available at: www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/resources/CHWsResearch_Agenda_by2015.pdf
Fujiwara, N. (2015), “Report on stakeholder engagement plan”, Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy implications (POLIMP) project report D2.2, April 2015.
Geels, F., Berkhout, F. and Vuuren, D. (2016), “Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 576-583.
Gonzalez, P., Sakamaki, T., Araki, M. and Shiga, S. (2015), “Impact of powertrain electrification, vehicle size reduction and lightweight materials substitution on energy use, CO2 emissions and cost of a passenger light-duty vehicle fleet”, Energy, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 1489-1504.
Grueneich, D. (2015), “The next level of energy efficiency: the five challenges ahead”, The Electricity Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 44-56.
Hall, A. and Dorai, K. (2010), “The greening of agriculture, agricultural innovation and sustainable growth”, Paper prepared for the OECD Synthesis Report on Agriculture and Green Growth, 2011.
Howell, S., Rezgui, Y., Hippolyte, J.-L., Jayan, B. and Li, H. (2017), “Towards the next generation of smart grids: semantic and holonic multi-agent management of distributed energy resources”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 77, pp. 193-214.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012), Energy Technology Perspectives 2012: Pathways to a Clean Energy System, Paris.
Jarvis, A. (2015), Identifying and Prioritizing Knowledge Gaps in Climate Change Adaptation in the Andes, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), In: UNEP-UNFCCC organised Adaptation Knowledge Day in SB42, Bonn, pp. 1-11.
Johnston, A., Kavalia, A. and Neuhoff, K. (2008), “Take or pay contracts for renewables deployment”, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 2481-2503.
Kaiser, M. and Forsberg, E.M. (2001), “Assessing fisheries – using an ethical matrix in a participatory process”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 191-200.
Karakosta, C. and Flamos, A. (2016), “Managing climate policy information facilitating knowledge transfer to policy makers”, Energies, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 454.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H. and Psarras, J. (2010a), “Technology transfer challenges within the new climate regime”, in Everett, B.A. and Trijillo, N.L. (Eds), Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Issues, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-60741-875-7, pp. 1-31, (Lead Chapter).
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H. and Psarras, J. (2011), “CDM sustainable technology transfer grounded in participatory in-country processes in Israel”, International Journal of Sustainable Society (Society), Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 225-242.
Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Flamos, A. and Psarras, J. (2007), “Sustainable technology transfer through the clean development mechanism: a collective approach grounded in participatory in-country processes”, ENERTECH 2007: 2nd International Conference on Renewable Energy Sourses and Energy Efficiency, Athens.
Karakosta, C., Flamos, A., Doukas, H. and Vaturi, A. (2010b), “Sustainable energy technology transfers through the CDM? Application of participatory approaches for decision making facilitation”, International Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Karakosta, C., Ioannou, A. and Flamos, A. (2014), “Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy”, 7th International Scientific Conference on Energy and Climate Change, Athens.
Kerr, N., Gouldsonb, A. and Barrett, J. (2017), “The rationale for energy efficiency policy: assessing the recognition of the multiple benefits of energy efficiency retrofit policy”, Energy Policy, Vol. 106, pp. 212-221.
Kok, K., Biggs, R. and Zurek, M. (2007), “Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: insights from Southern Africa and Europe”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 16.
Krywkow, J. and Hare, M. (2008), “Participatory process management”, Integrating Sciences and Information Technology for Environmental Assessment and Decision Making proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) Fourth Biennial Meeting, Barcelona, Vol. 2, pp. 888-899.
Laitinen, H., Saari, J., Kivisto, M. and Rasa, P.L. (1998), “Improving physical and psychosocial working conditions through a participatory ergonomic process: a before-after study at an engineering workshop”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Liu, Z., Adams, M., Cote, R.P., Geng, Y., Chen, Q., Liu, W., Sun, L. and Yu, X. (2017), “Comprehensive development of industrial symbiosis for the response of greenhouse gases emission mitigation: Challenges and opportunities in China”, Energy Policy, Vol. 102, pp. 88-95.
Maclean, H.L. (2004), “Alternative transport fuels for the future”, International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 27-49.
Millinger, M. and Thran, D. (2016), “Biomass price developments inhibit biofuel investments and research in Germany: the crucial future role of high yields”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1654-1663, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.175
Moarif, S. (2015), “Strategic review: implications of proposals to date for mitigation contributions”, Climate Change Expert Group Paper No. 2015 (2), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Energy Agency (IEA).
Natural Resources Canada (2010), Electric Vehicle Technology Roadmap for Canada, Ottawa.
OECD (2010), Agricultural Policies and Rural Development: A Synthesis of Recent OECD Work, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/40/44668202.pdf
Olubunmi, O.A., Xia, P.B. and Skitmore, M. (2016), “Green building incentives: a review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 59, pp. 1611-1621.
Palacios-Agundez, I., de Manuel, B.F., Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Pena, L., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., Alday, J.G., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Arana, X. and Onaindia, M. (2014), “Integrating stakeholders’ demands and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services in landscape planning”, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1423-1433.
Pedrosa, T. and Guimarães Pereira, Â. (2006), Participatory Tools, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University of Amsterdam, available at: www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/PT0_tcm53-161505.pdf
Petrokofsky, G., Brown, N.D., Hemery, G.E., Woodward, S., Wilson, E., Weatherall, A., Stokes, V., Smithers, R.J., Sangster, M., Russell, K., Pullin, A.S., Price, C., Morecroft, M., Malins, M., Lawrence, A., Kirby, K.J., Godbold, D., Charman, E., Boshier, D., Bosbeer, S. and Arnold, J.E.M. (2010), “A participatory process for identifying and prioritizing policy-relevant research questions in natural resource management: a case study from the UK forestry sector”, Forestry, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 357-367.
POLIMP (2014), D3.2: Report on Key Trends and Drivers, Mobilizing and transferring knowledge on post-2012 climate policy implications. POLIMP Project, April 2014.
Punda, L., Capuder, T., Pandžic, H. and Delimarb, M. (2017), “Integration of renewable energy sources in Southeast Europe: a review of incentive mechanisms and feasibility of investments”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 71, pp. 77-88.
Resch, G., Faber, T., Haas, R. and Huber, C. (2004), “Experience curves vs dynamic cost-resource curves and their impact on the assessment of the future development of renewables”, Energy and Environment, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 309-321.
Rosenow, J. and Bayer, E. (2017), “Costs and benefits of energy efficiency obligations: a review of European programmes”, Energy Policy, Vol. 107, pp. 53-62.
Ruud, K., Assoumou, E., Chiodi, A., Ciorba, U., Gaeta, M., Gielen, D., Hamasaki, H., Kanudia, A., Kober, T., Labriet, M., Maïzi, N., Gallachóir, B.Ó., Saygin, D., Seixas, J., Wagner, N. and Wright, E. (2015), “A global renewable energy roadmap: comparing energy systems models with IRENA’s REmap 2030 Project”, in Giannakidis, G., Labriet, M., Gallachóir, B.O. and Tosato, G.C. (Eds), Informing Energy and Climate Policies Using Energy Systems Models, Lecture Notes in Energy 30, Springer International Publishing, pp. 43-67.
Scholza, A., Bonzon, K., Fujita, R., Benjamin, N., Woodling, N., Black, P. and Steinback, C. (2004), “Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen’s knowledge for marine protected area planning in California”, Marine Policy, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 335-349.
Shokrzadeh, S. and Bibeau, E. (2016), “Sustainable integration of intermittent renewable energy and electrified light-duty transportation through repurposing batteries of plug-in electric vehicles”, Energy, Vol. 106, pp. 701-711.
Slocum, N. (2003), Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner’s Manual, Joint publication of the King Baudouin Foundation and the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment in collaboration with the United Nations University – Comparative Regional Integration Studies.
Sperling, D. (2003), “Cleaner vehicles”, in Hensher, D.A. and Button, K.J. (Eds), Handbooks in Transport 4: Handbook of Transport and the Environment, Elsevier, pp. 185-202.
Suna, D. and Resch, G. (2016), “Is nuclear economical in comparison to renewables?”, Energy Policy, Vol. 98, pp. 199-209.
Taibia, E., Gielenb, D. and Bazilian, M. (2012), “The potential for renewable energy in industrial applications”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 735-744.
UK Parliament (2015), “The parliamentary office of science and technology“, Trends in Transport, Postnote Number 496, June 2015.
UNFCCC (2015a), “UN communicates negotiating text for climate agreement to capitals”, Press Release 19/3/2015, available at: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/un-communicates-negotiating-text-for-climate-agreement-to-capitals/
UNFCCC (2015b), “Conference of the parties”, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twentieth Session, held in Lima from 1 to 14 December 2014, FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2010), The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2°C or 1,5°C? A Preliminary Assessment, Full report, UNEP, Nairobi, ISBN: 978-92-807-3353-2.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2011), Renewable Energy in industrial Applications, an Assessment of the 2050 Potential, Vienna International Centre.
Van Asselt, M. and Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002), “A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 167-184.
Weaver, L. and Cousins, J.B. (2007), “Unpacking the participatory process”, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-40.
Wohlgemuth, N. and Monga, P. (2008), “Renewable energy for industrial applications in developing countries”, in Goswami, D.Y. and Zhao Y., (Eds), Proceedings of ISES World Congress 2007, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. I-V.
World Bank (1996), The World Bank Participation Workbook, Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceeding Series, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Developmenlt/The World Bank, Washington DC, ISBN 0-82113-3558-8.
Further reading
Michaelowa, A., Castro, P. and Bagchi, C. (2013), “Report on stakeholder mapping: multi-level interaction of climate policy stakeholders in the run-up to the 2015 agreement”, Mobilizing and Transferring Knowledge on post-2012 Climate Policy Implications (POLIMP) Project Report D2.1, Climate Strategies and University of Graz, Great Britain, available at: www.polimp.eu/images/results/D2.1_-_Report_on_stakeholder_mapping.pdf
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2015), “Trends in transport”, Postnote Number 496, June 2015.