Monday, June 11, 2012

5087.txt

date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:46:53 +0100
from: Alex Haxeltine <Alex.HaxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Progress on contacting EU Stakeholders for ADAM
to: "Alex Haxeltine" <Alex.HaxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <a.jordanatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <alexander.wokaun@psi.ch>, <bayer@iiasa.ac.at>, <Detlef.van.Vuuren@rivm.nl>, <f.berkhoutatXYZxyzsex.ac.uk>, <frank.biermann@ivm.falw.vu.nl>, <frank.raesatXYZxyz.it>, <gunnar.eskeland@cicero.uio.no>, <h.j.schellnhuberatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <j.Kohler@econ.cam.ac.uk>, <j.RotmansatXYZxyzs.unimaas.nl>, <jdtabara@terra.es>, <jochem@cepe.mavt.ethz.ch>, <karen.obrienatXYZxyzero.uio.no>, <lennart.olssonatXYZxyzlu.lu.se>, <Marcel.Berk@rivm.nl>, <marco.bindi@unifi.it>, <N.AdgeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <Ottmar.Edenhofer@pik-potsdam.de>, <P.Martens@icis.unimaas.nl>, <pal.prestrud@cicero.uio.no>, <Pavel.Kabat@wur.nl>, <Richard.Klein@pik-potsdam.de>, <saskia.werners@wur.nl>, <Terry.BarkeratXYZxyzn.cam.ac.uk>, <tom.downingatXYZxyz.se>, <Tom.KramatXYZxyzm.nl>, <zbyszek@pik-potsdam.de>, <zkundzeatXYZxyz.poznan.pl>, barreto Leonardo <leonardo.barreto@psi.ch>, Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Notes from conversations with EEA, DG Environment and DG Energy and Transport

I have just returned from an EFIEA science-policy workshop where I had a
chance to speak to Artur Runge-Metzger, who is head of climate change at DG
Environment, Hokan Karlstrom from DG Energy and Transport, and David Stanners
from the EEA.

They were all very positive about providing us with input on their information
and research needs, and have given names of appropriate people to contact by
phone during the next week or so.,

Here�s a few points that emerged:

1��At the Spring Council meeting this year(equivalent to a board meeting for
the commission i.e. very high-level), the council asked the commission to
produce a CBA on climate change for the next spring council meeting. So DG
Environment are currently overseeing the production of a CBA on climate
change; this is clearly an important reference point for ADAM, especially as
it will likely show that there is a massive knowledge gap when it comes to
valuing the damages avoided and co-benefits of climate change policy.

2�..DG Environment does not have any objections to IA modelling per see.
Rather it is true that in the past they have tended not to emphasize
adaptation, but now they see research on adaptation as vital for two reasons �
1) because they now realise that some adaptation is required
2) analysis on adaptation is required as part of the process of building the
case for mitigation (see above point about the CBA).

3��DG Environment will need to put together a basic position on climate change
with regards to a Post-Kyoto climate regime by the spring council meeting next
year, 2005; the implication for ADAM is that the project will be interacting
with a policy cycle that is already underway, and so we will therefore need to
be especially aware of what is already happening as we write the project
proposal, and during the initial project start-up phase

4�.. There is a clear and growing need for analysis of the regional and
sectoral distribution of impacts, adaptation and mitigation, and associated
costs. So our modelling and assessment work will need to be able to resolve
regions and sectors (or sample regions and sectors) within Europe if it is to
be useful.

5�..Basing a scenario around the 2 degrees targets fits well with the policy
process; but importantly in the 2 degrees scenario we are NOT looking at just
what adaptation is required for a 2 degree change but rather what type of
adaptation measures are required when there is a range of uncertainties about
what the eventual future climate change will be.

4�..The Lisbon strategy frames targets in terms of sectors, but does not
adequately address climate change�. Thus we could look at the opportunities
and dilemmas that climate change poses for the Lisbon targets in different
Lisbon-defined sectors.

5�..Further key stakeholders should be the EU Expert Group on Research and a
small sample (two �three) of contacts in national ministries with lead
responsibility for climate change (suggest UK, Sweden, Germany?).

6�..Analysis could be based around looking at the EU policy response to
climate change as combining the emission trading system with an enabling
environment for the market-creation of climate-friendly technologies (i.e.
both push and pull). A key question is to what extent this �enabling
environment� can and should be created at an EU rather that national or
regional level. The answer may be different for different sectors and
technologies, and we could contribute with analysis in this area. This also
involves the question of whether the EU can avoid having to attempt to pick
winners�the arguments against doing this are pretty obvious�the compelling (?)
arguments for it, are to do with major infrastructure changes (e.g. shift to
the hydrogen economy) and/or a need to accelerate the bringing to market of
specific technologies.

7�. There is an awful lot already going on�and the EU policy process is
complicated�so producing a mapping of the current policy process�.including a
basic analysis of leverage points and barriers in the policy system will be an
important initial activity in ADAM (e.g. the UK�s Carbon trust has not been
able to provide certain funding for the development of climate-friendly
technologies in the UK because it would break EU regulations on national
subsidies; 50% of new housing in the Netherlands does not meet minimum legal
requirements for energy efficiency; many states are not implementing the
Eco-design Directive which has important implications for the
carbon-efficiency of new products being developed in the EU, etc, etc).


----------------------------------


No comments:

Post a Comment