-
No. 6 July 2016
CARISMAClimate ChangeMitigationMonitor
In this issue
At the recent Bonn Climate Change Conference,enhanced Guidance
for Preparing a Technology ActionPlan has been made available, in
order to improve thedevelopment of prioritised technologies into
projectsthat can be ultimately implemented.
The Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) process
prioritisestechnology options for climate change mitigation
andadaptation in light of a country’s sustainable
developmentpriorities. The TNA process therefore not only maps out
acountry’s longterm development priorities, but also
identifiestechnologies to realise these with lower emissions
andstronger climate resilience. As a next step, the TNA
identifiesand analyses barriers hindering deployment and diffusion
ofthe prioritised technologies, as well as measures to
overcomethese. The final step in the TNA process is the preparation
ofTechnology Action Plans (TAPs), which support theimplementation
of the prioritised technologies, at the desiredscale, to achieve
the climate and development benefits asidentified earlier in the
TNA.
Since the end of the 1990s, over 100 developing countrieshave
conducted TNAs. In 2009, the TNA process was updatedwith improved
guidance, which was applied by over 30countries during the Global
TNA Project of 20092013.Currently, a second phase of this project
is ongoing withanother 25 countries. Results from the Global TNA
Projecthave been analysed by the UNFCCC secretariat in the ThirdTNA
Synthesis Report and by the Technology ExecutiveCommittee in a
paper on TNA Good Practice.
From these TNA review activities, it has become clear thatwhile
countries have been able to systematically prioritisetechnologies
for climate and development, the TAPs oftencontain insufficient
information for potential investors toconsider technologies and
enabling actions for funding.Therefore, COP20 (Lima, 2014)
requested guidance on howthe results of the TNAs, in particular the
TAPs, can bedeveloped into projects that can be ultimately
implemented.COP21 (Paris, 2015) welcomed the work, after which
theguidance was presented at a sideevent during the BonnClimate
Change Conference on 18 May of this year.
ENHANCED GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING A TAP
Enhanced guidance for preparing a TAP Review of databases on
mitigation policy Jump start the EU heating/cooling strategy
Roadmaps for lowcarbon energy technology The costs of climate
change mitigation Technology transfer in the Paris Agreement
Accelerating public understanding of CCS Pledges overshoot Paris
temperature limit Key publications CARISMA project updates
While formulation of TAPs is the final stage of a TNA
process,the guidance considers TAPs as a ‘keystone’ between
‘TNAanalysis’ on the one hand and ‘technology implementation’ onthe
other: without a solid action plan, implementation ofprioritised
technologies will not work (see Figure 1). ►
Wytze van der GaastJIN Climate and Sustainability
"The Technology Action Planforms the keystone in thetechnology
transfer process"
1334455667
Figure 1. TAP as keystone in technology transfer process.
http://jin.ngo/11-publications/117-3sr-tnahttp://jin.ngo/11-publications/117-3sr-tnahttp://jin.ngo/11-publications/119-tec-9-paper-tna-good-practice
-
No. 6 July 2016 Page 2
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor
The guidance also acknowledges that actions in a TAP cantake
different forms, such as a technology demonstrationproject, or a
programme to train local engineers in operatingthe technology. The
goal of the guidance is to help ensurethat each completed TAP
contains:
• A set of concrete actions needed for successful
technologyimplementation in the country; and
• An indicative investment proposal for each technology,which
can be considered for funding by potential publicand/or private
funders.
TAP PREPARATION PROCESSThe target audience for a TAP are
incountry public andprivate sector stakeholders that are likely to
be involved inthe implementation of the proposed actions detailed
in theTAP. These stakeholders can be decision makers
fromgovernments, where actions involve, for instance,
regulatorymeasures or incentives or infrastructural improvements,
andprivate investors when actions concern concrete
businessproposals and/or investment opportunities.
1. Ambition: The first task is to describe the scale andcontext
for technology deployment and diffusion in thecountry context (the
‘ambition’). Usually, this information hasbeen collected in earlier
stage of a TNA but is revisited in lightof latest developments in
the country.
2. Selection of actions for inclusion in the TAP: Actionsare
selected to support technology implementation at thedesired scale.
Earlier in a TNA, barriers have been identifiedto deployment and
diffusion for each priority technology, aswell as possible measures
for addressing these. For a TAP,the previously identified measures
are turned into a list ofactions. These actions are expanded into a
set of specificactivities, i.e. the specific things to be done to
realise anaction.
3. Responsibilities and time frame: Once the activitiesare
defined, the relevant stakeholders, i.e. those who will bedirectly
involved in the implementation of the TAP, should be
identified. Here, it is also important to estimate a
timeframefor each activity, including the sequence of actions
andwhether a technology is a turnkey option to be implementedin the
short run or an option which still needs some furthersteps before
it can be deployed in the market in the country.
4. Capacity and financial resource needs: For all Actionsand
activities identified for inclusion in the TAP, it is importantto
estimate the human and financial resources needed foreach,
including the type of financing required and potentialsources of
funding. The guidance acknowledges that detailedcostestimates may
not be feasible given the resources for aTNA. Instead, TNA teams
are recommended to clearly identifywhat are the different cost
items to be covered and to makebasic calculations using as much as
possible benchmark orother generally available cost information.
With that, the TAPsproduce cost figures that help potential funders
assess whichitems they could cover and whether the action plan
meetsprefeasibility checks. As a next step, and usually beyond
theTNA project (resources), more detailed cost calculations canbe
made using the funder’s own guidance and template.
5. Finally, the TAP should include a management plan
forreporting, risk management, corrective measures, andcontingency
plans.
The five steps of the renewed TAP guidance are presented
inFigure 2.
Figure 2. Overview of steps of a TAP preparation process. All
five sequential steps for TAP formulation are part of a TNA process
and supported, in termsof capacity and costs, by the Global TNA
Project.
MORE INFORMATIONThe report 'Guidance for Preparinga Technology
Action Plan' can beviewed or downloaded from thewebsite of the TNA
project:www.techaction.org. Here youmay also find more
informationabout the TNA project, other TNAguidance documents, and
TNAreports on the process and resultsin participating
countries.
http://www.tech-action.org/http://www.tech-action.org/-/media/Sites/TNA_project/TNA%20Guidebooks/Guidance-for-Preparing-a-Technology-Action-Plan_Upload.ashx?la=da
-
No. 6 July 2016 Page 3
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor
INFORMATION OVERLOAD? REVIEW OF DATABASESON CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION POLICYPolicy makers need a wide range of information
inorder to adopt the best possible policies to act onclimate
change. A variety of databases have emerged,compiling information
on climate change mitigationpolicies in a variety of countries. An
analysis of 24such databases has been undertaken.
The analysis leads to a few preliminary findings. First, data
onclimate change mitigation policies is increasingly available.This
is a positive development from the perspective oftransparency of
climate policy, and can potentially lead tomore informed decision
making.
Second, available information is concentrated largely on
theenergy sector, with an emphasis on energy efficiency. A
morecomprehensive coverage of climate policy databases,including
more focus on e.g. agricultural policies, would be awelcome
development.
Third, data availability is unevenly distributed. While
theemissionsintensive countries in the global North are
wellrepresented, information on policies in developing countries
isscarcer and less comprehensive. More information ondeveloping
countries' policies would not only be beneficial to
track their efforts to achieve NDCs, but may also be useful
forthe countries themselves, with a view to sharing knowledgeand
best practices with each other, gaining access to climatefinance,
and learn about past successes and failures.
Fourth, the data sources analysed are insufficiently linked
toeach other, thus forgoing potential synergies, and
potentiallyleading to an excess of information.
Lastly, data sources generally eschew comparisons of policiesand
provide little information about the costs of, and actualemissions
savings attributed to, specific policies. While it maybe
challenging to provide such information both ex ante andex post,
comparable estimates of costs and/or emissionssavings will become
increasingly important after Paris.
The CARISMA working document on the review of
mitigationdatabases can be downloaded from the CARISMA website.
JUMP START THE EU HEATING & COOLING STRATEGYThe EU's Heating
and Cooling Strategy provides aframework to better integrate
efficient heating andcolling into existing energy policies. The
focus is on(1) minimising energy leakage from buildings,
(2)maximising the efficiency and sustainabiltiy of heatingand
cooling systems, (3) supporting efficiency inindustry, and (4)
integrating heating and cooling inthe electricity system.
The relevance of this strategy for the EU's energy systemcannot
be understated. Heating and cooling is the singlelargest energy
sector in the EU, totalling 50% (550 Mtoe) offinal energy
consumption. Fossil fuels accounted for 75% ofthe primary energy
supply for heating and cooling, whilerenewables accounted for
18%.
In decarbonising urban environments, district heating holds
agreat potential to be a key strategic option, especially
incombination with renewable energy (incl. biomass). However,there
are significant challenges, such as lack of
investments,unfavourable price developments, and a highly
diverseregulatory framework for district heating across Europe.
During a discussion at the BIOTEAM conference in Brussels,the
main lesson learnt was that, even if the competition withnatural
gas is tough, sustainable district heating is possibleand desirable
given the large volumes of heat being wasted.
The BIOTEAM project was a threeyear project (20132016),cofunded
by the EU's Intelligent Energy Europe programme.The project focused
on optimising pathways and marketsystems for enhanced
competitiveness of sustainable bioenergy. Upon the end of the
project, the 'BIOTEAM Magazine'has been publised, providing an
overview of the key results,including the work on district heating,
the role of biogas in acircular agroeconomy, and life cycle
assessments of anumber of bioenergy pathways in a range of
Europeancountries.
Harro van Asselt & Stefan Bößner,Stockholm Environment
Instituted
Within the CARISMA project, SEI leadsthe work on mapping and
assessingclimate climate mitigation policies.
Figure 3. Primary energy for heating and cooling, 2012
More information about theBIOTEAM project, along with
itspublications, is available atwww.sustainablebiomass.eu.
http://carisma-project.eu/Publications/Working-Document-Serieshttp://www.sustainable-biomass.euhttp://www.sustainable-biomass.eu
-
No. 6 July 2016 Page 4
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor
ROADMAPS FOR LOWCARBON ENERGY TECHNOLOGYIn order to address the
challenge of climate change, itis necessary to accelerate the
development of lowcarbon (energy) technologies. The
InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA) has prepared a set of 'roadmaps'to
take on this challenge, along with issues of energysecurity and
economic growth.
The IEA Technology Roadmaps are strategic plans describingsteps
needed to be taken to support the development of lowcarbon
technologies, outlining targets, pathways, priorities,and time
frames for their RDD&D (research, development,demonstration and
deployment). They include technical,policy, legal, financial,
market, and organisational needs fortechnology development, based
on stakeholder consultation.
The technologyspecific roadmaps present internationalconsensus
on milestones for technology development,legal/regulatory needs,
investment requirements, publicengagement/outreach and
international collaboration, basedon the 2°C Scenario (laying out a
pathway giving an 80%chance of keeping global temperature increase
below 2degrees). In addition to these international roadmaps,
theIEA is working with several countries on country
andtechnologyspecific roadmaps, such as a Wind EnergyDevelopment
Roadmap for China.
The 21 technologyspecific roadmaps include a range ofrenewable
energy technologies, such as solar photovoltaics,bioenergy,
geothermal heat and power, hydropower, nuclearenergy, and wind
energy. In addition, there are roadmapsfocused on CCS, lowcarbon
technologies in the transport andindustry sectors, and
energyefficient buildings.
Based on the experience with 'roadmapping', the IEA hasprepared
a 'howto guide'. The guide includes detaileddirections to countries
and companies wishing to develop andimplement effective lowcarbon
energy technology roadmapsrelevant to their circumstances and
objectives. It includesclear guidance on how to identify key
stakeholders anddevelop a technology baseline, and indicators for
progresstracking. According to the IEA, there are six vital aspects
inthe design of a roadmap process: stakeholder
participation;resource constraints; critical inputs; roadmap
design; buyinand dissemination; and monitoring and tracking.
The Technology Roadmapsas well as the 'howto guide'are available
to download atwww.iea.org/roadmaps.
THE COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATIONIs it the social cost of
carbon, the private costs, thecarbon price or a reduction in the
gross domesticproduct (GDP) we need to consider when talkingabout
the costs of mitigation? The truth is: all of theseterms are
legitimate, but one must be aware of thedefinitions in order to use
them in the right context.
Most analyses report mitigation costs in
macroeconomicindicators, such as 'GDP losses'. In general,
estimates arestated as deviations from a baseline scenario
withoutmitigation policies: the measure expresses how much GDP
is"lost" in percentage terms at a particular point in timecompared
to its expected value for this particular point intime by reducing
emissions to a certain stabilisation scenario.
Estimates of aggregate economic costs of mitigation areexecuted
through integrated models based on a wide rangeof assumptions of
e.g. behavioural change and technologicalswitch. Therefore,
estimates are highly variable. For example,the IPCC predicts global
consumption loss of between 3 and11% by 2100.
Several studies confirm that delaying mitigation actions
iscostly in multiple ways, as by the later starting point of
theactions, GHG concentrations have already increased, andthereis
less time remaining for policies to become effective. Thefigure
below shows that delay results in higher costs,regardless of the
CO2 stabilisation target. On average, netmitigation costs increase
by approximately 50% for eachdecade of delay. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to invest inclimate change mitigation right away.
CLIMATE POLICY INFO HUBThis note is a summary of the knowledge
package 'The Costsof Mitigation: An Overview' on the Climate Policy
Info Hub.This website offers sciencebased knowledge for
climatedecisionmakers, on topics suchas EU and international
climatepolicy, the EU ETS, renewableenergy, energy efficiency,
andadaptation.Figure 4. Additional mitigation costs caused by a
delay (source: CEA)
http://www.iea.org/roadmapshttp://www.iea.org/roadmapshttp://www.climatepolicyinfohub.euhttp://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/costs-mitigation-overviewhttp://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/costs-mitigation-overview
-
No. 6 July 2016 Page 5
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT:IS EUROPE READY FOR
ENLIGHTENED SELFINTEREST?On the 30th of June, the European
Commission's DGfor Climate Action, in collaboration with
ICFInternational, hosted a workshop on the role oftechnology
transfer in the Paris Agreement. Theworkshop's focus was on the
private sector, and inparticular on the opportunities the Paris
Agreementcreates for European businesses. This is telling; thefocus
of the European negotiators in the technologydiscussions under the
UNFCCC has been narrowly selfinterested. In the wake of the Paris
Agreement, it istime that this selfinterest becomes more
enlightened.
The developed countries in the UNFCCC have consistentlyargued
that the Technology Mechanism, which is theframework under which
the climate negotiations have, for thepast six years, tried to
enhance technology transfer ofclimatefriendly technology to
developing countries, ought tofacilitate private sector activities.
As most climate technologyand business is currently still located
in industrialisedcountries, it is firmly in Europe’s interest that
mechanismsunder the UNFCCC create opportunities that will lead
toadded value, and jobs, in the old continent.
However, this also needs to be nuanced. The TechnologyMechanism
is the result of difficult negotiations towards theParis Agreement
and cannot be seen in isolation. In the ParisAgreement, developing
countries accepted soft mitigationcommitments in exchange for
serious support to realise theirtargets laid down in their
Nationally DeterminedContributions. Pushing for European business
opportunitiesmay disturb this delicate balance.
It is too simple to regard the business opportunities under
theTechnology Mechanism as a winwinwin situation for the
climate, developing countries, and European
business.Unfortunately, the core interest of business is
notenvironmental sustainability or climateresilient developmentin
developing countries. It is time that the Member States ofthe
European Union not only talk about their own interests,but take
responsibility for the success of the TechnologyMechanism.
They can do so by arguing for and promoting active
NationalDesignated Entities for the Technology Mechanism in
allMember States, providing generous nonearmarked fundingfor the
Climate Technology Centre and Network (theimplementation arm of the
Technology Mechanism whichconnects developing countries’ technology
transfer needs withdeveloped countries’ technologies and
expertise), andreporting on their climate technology transfer
activities, thusallowing muchneeded learning about good
practices.
Indeed, if this would be done seriously, the
businessopportunities will come, also for Europe. The
EuropeanCommission needs to acknowledge that to maintaindeveloping
countries motivated to achieve their NDCs, helpingEuropean business
is a secondary objective, and the interestsof developing countries
should be at the core and centre in itsdiscussions on technology
transfer.
Heleen de ConinckRadboud University
"The EU should look furtherthan its narrow selfinterestin
business opportunities"
ACCELERATING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF CCSCarbon capture and
storage (CCS) is one of theclimate change mitigation technology
options focusedon by the CARISMA project. The Global CCS
Institutehas recently released two new reports to helpaccelerate
public understanding of this technology.
The report 'Introduction to Industrial Carbon Capture
andStorage' summarises 17 CCS projects across sectors
includingnatural gas processing, fertiliser manufacturing and
hydrogenproduction. The report highlights that one quarter of
theworld’s CO2 emissions, or 8.5 gigatonnes, result from these,and
other industrial sectors such as iron and steel, cementproduction
and petrochemicals refining. According to theGlobal CCS Institute,
CCS is the only technology that canachieve deep reductions in CO2
emissions from such high
emitting industries, and "failure to stimulate a future
pipelineof CCS projects could see the cost fo climate mitigation
morethan double."
The second report, 'Understanding Industrial CCS Hubs
andClusters' explores the economic benefits of building
sharedinfrastructure for multiple small industrial emitters to
reduceemissions using CCS.
The highlights of both reportscan be read on the 'IndustrialCCS'
page of the Global CCSInstitute website. Here alsoPDF versions of
both reportscan be downloaded.
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/content/industrial-ccshttp://www.globalccsinstitute.com/content/industrial-ccs
-
No. 6 July 2016 Page 6
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor
PLEDGES OVERSHOOT PARIS TEMPERATURE LIMITIndividual country
pledges to reduce greenhouse gasemissions would need to be
strengthened in order tolimit future climate change to well below
the 2°C limitincluded in the Paris climate agreement. This is
theconclusion of a new assessment by a team ofinternational
research organisations from Europe, theUS, Latin America, Africa,
Asia, and Oceania, that hasbeen published in Nature.
Pledges made for the Paris agreement on climate change
lastwinter would lead to global temperature rise of 2.6 to 3.1 °Cby
the end of the century. In fact, the entire carbon budgetfor
limiting warming to below 2 °C might have been emittedby 2030,
according to the study.
The new study provides an indepth analysis of the pledgeswhich
countries submitted at the Paris climate meeting inDecember, the
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions(INDCs), showing that
additional measures would benecessary to limit future temperature
rise to 2 °C, or even 1.5°C, by 2100. Substantial enhancement or
overdelivery oncurrent INDCs by additional national, subnational
and nonstate actions is required to maintain a reasonable chance
ofmeeting the target of keeping warming well below 2
degreesCelsius.
Publication: Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen,T.,
Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R. Sha, F., Riahi, K.
&Meinshausen, M. (2016), 'Paris Agreement climateproposals need
a boost to keep warming well below2 °C', Nature, vol. 534, pp.
631639.
KEY RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON MITIGATIONThe CARISMA team has
selected key publications infields relevant to climate change
mitigation, includingclimate policy, climate law, and
technology.
Bataille, C., Waisman, H., Colombier, M., Segafredo,
L.,Williams, J. & Jotzo, F. (2016), 'The need for nationaldeep
decarbonization pathways for effective climatepolicy', Climate
Policy, vol. 16, suppl. 1 (Special Issue onDeep Carbonization
Pathways Project), pp. S7S26.
COP22 Presidency (25 May 2016), Openended informalconsultations
on the Marrakech Conference, BonnClimate Change Conference.
Speaking notes Mr. Aziz Mekouaron behalf of Morocco, incoming
Presidency COP22/CMP12.
Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. & Van Vuuren, D.P.
(2016),'Bridging analytical approaches for lowcarbontransitions',
Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, pp. 576583.
Glachant, M., Ing, J. & Nicolai, J.P. (2016), The
incentivesto NorthSouth transfer of climatemitigationtechnologies
with trade in polluting goods, EconomicsWorking Paper 16/242,
Zurich: CERETH.
Government of Pakistan (2016), Technology NeedsAssessment
Report: Climate Change Mitigation,Islamabad: Ministry of Climate
Change.
Luderer, G., Bertram, C., Calvin, K., De Cian, E. &
Kriegler, E.(2016), 'Implications of weak nearterm climatepolicies
on longterm mitigation pathways', ClimaticChange, vol. 136, no. 1,
pp. 127140.
Mace, M.J. (2016), 'Mitigation Commitments Under theParis
Agreement and the Way Forward', Climate Law,vol. 6, no. 12 (Special
Issue on Paris Agreement), pp. 2139.
Peeters, M. (2016), 'An EU Law Perspective on the
ParisAgreement: Will the EU Consider Strengthening itsMitigation
Effort?', Climate Law, vol. 6, no. 12 (SpecialIssue on Paris
Agreement), pp. 182195.
UNFCCC (2016), Technology and the UNFCCC: Buildingthe foundation
for sustainable development, Bonn:United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Van Asselt, H. (2016), 'The Role of NonState Actors inReviewing
Ambition, Implementation, and Complianceunder the Paris Agreement',
Climate Law, vol. 6, no. 12(Special Issue on Paris Agreement), pp.
91108.
WongParodi, G., Krishnamurti, T., Davis, A., Schwartz, D.
&Fischhoff, B. (2016), 'A decision science approach
forintegrating social science in climate and energysolutions',
Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, pp. 563569.
Figure 5. Global greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2030, as
impliedby INDCs (orange), compared to nopolicy baseline (red),
currrentpolicies (yellow) and 2 °C scenarios (blue) (source: Rogelj
et al., 2016).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1173005?journalCode=tcpo20http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/application/pdf/opening_remarks_incoming_cop22-cmp12-presidency_20160525.pdfhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2980.htmlhttp://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/view/eth:48867http://www.mocc.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vY2xjL3VzZXJmaWxlczEvZmlsZS9GaW5hbCUyMFROQSUyMHJlcG9ydCUyMDE2JTIwTWF5JTIwMjAxNi5wZGY%3Dhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0899-9http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18786561-00601002http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18786561-00601013https://www.ctc-n.org/news/tec-publication-technology-and-unfccchttp://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18786561-00601006http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n6/full/nclimate2917.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201606&spMailingID=51451933&spUserID=MzcwNDE0MDAwODES1&spJobID=923072136&spReportId=OTIzMDcyMTM2S0http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18307.html
-
Page 7
Climate ChangeMitigationMonitor No. 6 July 2016
www.carismaproject.eu
@CarismaEU
CARISMA Project Group
The CARISMA project intends to ensure a continuous
coordinationand assessment of climate change mitigation
options.
This project has received funding from the European
Union’sHorizon 2020 Programme of the EU under Grant Agreement
No.642442.
CARISMA PROJECT UPDATES
Online mitigation portal
Communication and consultation. The CARISMA teamhas carried out
an initial stakeholder consultation with climatechange mitigation
stakeholders across Europe. Key outcomesinclude the need for
embedding climate change mitigationoptions in their socioeconomic
context, the importance ofconsidering policy interactions, en the
need to enhancelearning from EU projects and experiences. CARISMA
aims tomeet this need by setting up an online portal (see
below).
Research and innovation. A complete list of mitigationoptions
has been prepared, as well as an inventory of whatresearch and
innovation (R&I) initiatives are going on inEurope, Next steps
include the creation of a validated list ofpriorities for R&I,
and an assessment of priority issues forinnovation towards market
implementation. Meetings withinnovation decisionmakers will be
organised at EU andMember State levels to present and discuss the
key findings.
The CARISMA project is carriedout by a team of researchers
from10 European research institutesand universities, led by
RadboudUniversity in the Netherlands.
THE CARISMA PROJECT TEAM
Assessment of technologies for mitigation. A range of
methodologiesare being used for the assessment of climate change
mitigation technologies.The assessments focus on costs and
benefits, environmental aspects, andsocial aspects including public
acceptance. Technologies assessed include bioCCS, solar PV, smart
grids, wind energy, and artificial trees.
Mapping and assessing mitigation policies. Databases of climate
changemitigation policies have been analysed, resulting in a
working document (seepage 3 for more information). In addition, a
set of case studies are carriedout focussing on interaction among
policies, for example between the EU'semissions trading scheme and
renewable energy policies.
Policy implementation and context factors. Different approaches
togovernance and their main features are being analysed, focusing
amongstothers on the degree of climate mainstreaming, participatory
configurations,and publicprivate partnerships. In addition, a list
of contextual factors thatcould influence climate change policy
formulation and implementation is beingprepared. Such contextual
factors include institutional, political, economic,and social
aspects.
International collaboration on research, innovation, and
technologytransfer. Research and innovation (R&I) initiatives
for climate changemitigation at various levels are mapped and
analysed. In addition, CARISMAfocuses at a firmlevel assessment of
the functioning of global innovationnetworks. In this framework,
CARISMA organised a workshop on R&Ioffshoring, in March of this
year in Copenhagen.
The CARISMA project aims, together withother EUfunded projects,
to launch anonline climate change mitigation portal,enabling
exchange of information onmitigation research and innovation.
Thecollaborating projects will post highlightsof their work so that
information fromdifferent EUfunding projects on climatechange
mitigation can be found in oneplace, supporting the dissemination
ofclimate change mitigation knowledge.
CARISMA collaborates with the followingprojects on the structure
and design ofthe platform:
ADVANCE: Advanced modeldevelopment and validationfor improved
analysis ofmitigation policies
TRANSrisk: Transitionpathways and risk analysis forclimate
change mitigation andadaptation strategies/policies
PATHWAYS: Exploring thepossibilities for transitions to
alowcarbon, sustainableEurope
CDLINKS: Linking climateand development policies leveraging
networks andknowlegde sharing
GREENWIN: Solutionoriented approach for greengrowth and winwin
strategiesfor sustainable climate action
Figure 6. Group photo of the CARISMAteam during the project
meeting inPrague in February 2016.
http://www.carisma-project.euhttp://www.twitter.com/CarismaEUhttps://www.linkedin.com/groups/8345442http://www.fp7-advance.eu/http://www.transrisk-project.eu/http://www.pathways-project.eu/http://www.cd-links.org/http://www.green-win-project.eu/