date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:46:53 +0100 from: Alex Haxeltine subject: Progress on contacting EU Stakeholders for ADAM to: "Alex Haxeltine" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , barreto Leonardo , Mike Hulme 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). ----------------------------------