carisma climate change mitigation monitor · 2016. 7. 5. · no. 6 july 2016 page 2 climate change...

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



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



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



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



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

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/

carisma climate change mitigation monitor · 2016. 7. 5. · no. 6 july 2016 page 2 climate change...

Documents