summary report of the interview assessment · pdf file2 summary report of the interview...
TRANSCRIPT
1
SustainergyNet
Integrating civil, scientific and stakeholder knowl edge towards African
sustainable energy policy
Summary Report
of the
Interview Assessment Reports
July 2009
2
Summary Report of the
Interview Assessment Reports
This summary report has been compiled in July 2009 by SustainergyNet project
coordinator IDC:
Dr. Angela Meyer (Project Coordinator)
Christoph Clar
Gregor Giersch
This report is based on the interviews carried out by SustainergyNet project partners
OIIP (Austria), TUD (Germany), AFREPREN/FWD (Kenya), CU-IARS (Egypt). It
compares and summarizes the findings and outcomes outlined in the four individual
interview assessment reports, compiled by each partner.
3
CONTENT
1.INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND....... ........................4
2.OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED .........................................................6
OIIP.........................................................................................................................................................................6
TUD.........................................................................................................................................................................8
AFREPREN/FWD .................................................................................................................................................8
CU-IARS.................................................................................................................................................................9
3.APPROACHES AND EXPERIENCES ....................... ............................................10
The form and moment of involvement ..............................................................................................................11
Involvement according to type and size of CSOs ..............................................................................................13
The nature of contacts .........................................................................................................................................14
4.NEED FOR ACTION ..............................................................................................16
The problem of funding.......................................................................................................................................16
The problem of lacking trust...............................................................................................................................18
The question of professionalism and administrative strength ........................................................................19
The problem of lacking contact and communication........................................................................................20
The need to promote networking among CSOs.................................................................................................20
The need for supportive legislations ...................................................................................................................21
5.CONCLUDING REMARKS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUTLOOK . ...............21
Provide more possibilities for CSOs to get their profile known ......................................................................23
Facilitate and encourage multi-stakeholder dialogue ......................................................................................25
Provide more information about networking opportunities ...........................................................................25
Create a supportive infrastructure ....................................................................................................................26
Promote CSO involvement in the entire RTD process......................................................................................28
Raise the awareness on the benefits of CSO involvement ................................................................................28
Improved Features list for the “CSO Involvement Net” ..................................................................................29
1. Introduction and Methodological Background
The here summarised interviews have been conducted as part of the EU FP7
Coordination and Support Action (CSA) SustainergyNet - Integrating civil, scientific
and stakeholder knowledge towards African sustainable energy policy. The aim of
the project is to promote the participation of Civil Society Organisations in Africa in
research policy agenda setting on sustainable development and energy
management.
From January to April 2009, 2 European and 2 African project partners have
interviewed stakeholders concerned by the main topic addressed by the project, the
involvement of civil society organisations in research and research policy agenda
setting in the field of sustainable energy. This activity has been part of Work Package
2 (Assessment of Civil Society Involvement in Sustainable Energy Agenda Setting in
Africa and Europe).
The project partners involved were
• Austrian Institute for International Politics (OIIP);
• Technische Universität Dresden (TUD);
• Energy, Environment and Development Network for Africa
(AFREPREN/FWD);
• Cairo University - Institute for African Research Studies (CU-IARS).
The conduction of interviews was monitored and assisted by the project coordinator
Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC) and was
done at the same time as the review of relevant literature and documentation (see
“Summary Report on the Literature Review Reports”). The purpose of these
interviews was to gather information about the status-quo, and to record experiences
and currently followed approaches, as well as to assess major problems and barriers,
best practices and lessons learned. Moreover, the interviews allowed to collect some
recommendations and ideas for the “CSO Involvement Net”, an online exchange
platform that will be elaborated in the second part of the project.
Interview partners were representatives from civil society organisations (CSOs), the
research technology and development community (RTD) and policy making
institutions. Whereas interviews with research stakeholders were to provide a picture
on the cooperation between these actors and CSOs, the inclusion of policy-making
actors was primarily intended to assess the level and ways of engagement of the civil
society in research policy agenda setting processes. The involvement of two African
and two European partners into the interview process enables the project to assess
information, experience and opinions of concerned stakeholders on both continents.
The European project participants, OIIP and TUD, conducted their interviews with
representatives in European countries, mainly in Austria, Germany and Brussels. The
African project members’ interviews covered the situation on the African continent.
CU-IARS conducted interviews with stakeholders from Egypt and from regional
organisations located in Morocco and Sudan, whereas AFREPREN/FWD set the
focus on stakeholders from Kenya. Prior to the interviews, a guideline has been
jointly elaborated by the consortium, under the coordination of project leader IDC.
This guideline clearly defined the aim, scope and expected outcomes from the
interviews, as well as major topics and issues to be addressed. It included a list of
examples for questions to be asked. The decision to use a guideline rather than a
questionnaire for the conduction of interviews was based on the intention of keeping
the interviews as open as possible within the chosen scope, while still ensuring the
comparability of results and findings. On the one hand, such an approach was
considered important in view of the different backgrounds of the interview partners -
representing CSOs or the RTD and policy levels - and their, hence, different
perspectives on the topic. On the other hand, a questionnaire with predefined
questions for all four partners can never sufficiently address and take into
consideration the specific situations in Africa and Europe. It was therefore agreed to
pre-define only the topics and issues to be addressed and to leave it to each
interviewer to formulate own questions according to the respective interview partner.
In addition to this guideline, a raster for interview partners from the civil society, and
another for RTD and policy making actors have been developed for better recording
and comparing basic information and main findings. Both raster templates are
included in the annex.
Preliminary appraisal of first outcomes, evaluation of the chosen approach and
discussion of encountered problems have been the subjects of a consortium meeting
in Dresden, Germany in February 2009.
The four reports produced by the partners after their interviews have been provided
to the entire consortium for analysis and comparison. A summary of major results
and findings can be found on the following pages.
2. Overview of interviews conducted
Interviews overall
RTD & Policy Makers
CSOs Locations of IP
OIIP 16 Policy makers 3 RTD 5
8 Austria12, Slovakia 1, Germany 1,
Czech Rep. 1. Sweden 1
TU Dresden 13 Policy makers 7, RTD 1
5 Germany Brussels
AFREPREN 20 Policy makers 2 RTD 6
12 Kenya
IARS-CU 31
17
14
Egypt 29, Sudan 1,
Morocco 1
TOTAL 80 41 39
Table 1. Overview of interview partners
OIIP
The Austrian partner in the project, the Austrian Institute for International Affairs,
conducted a total of 16 interviews. All interviews with the exception of two were
conducted on the telephone; two were face to face interviews. The interviews were
in-depth interviews, conducted along the standardised rasters. The average duration
of an interview was 40 minutes.
The interview partners are representatives of different CSOs working in the field of
sustainable energy, members of research institutes and universities as well as
representatives of policy making institutions.
Eight of the interviewees are working for CSOs. Four of them in a leading position,
one being a campaign manager, one a marketing manager, and two being project
managers.
Four of the interview partners are working for CSOs that are mainly active in the field
of awareness raising or the promotion of specific sustainable energy technologies
such as solar energy or wind power.
Two interview partners are heading CSOs which are involved in application and
implementation processes of sustainable energy technologies (a biomass power
station, wind power and biogas station).
Two interviewees are representing CSOs operating at the grassroots level.
On the policy making level one of the interviewees is in a leading position in a
ministry, one the commissioner of the energy agenda in a large European city and
one the responsible for international relations in a model city for sustainable
development.
Interview partners in research institutions are all except one in leading positions. One
is working at a Technical University, the others are representatives of independent
research institutions which are either financed through public funding or/ and private
funding generated through projects and cooperations with industries and private
companies. Despite of being research institutes, in legal terms two of them are
registered as associations.
12 interview partners are located in Austria, one in Slovakia, one in Germany, one in
the Czech Republic and one in Sweden. Five interview partners are women and 11
men. Interestingly most of the female interview partners are representatives of
research institutions.
All contacted CSOs are located in cities or towns. One is operating on an
international level only, one exclusively on a national level and one on a regional
level. The remaining CSOs are operating on several levels at the same time
(meaning local, regional, national and international).
Three of the CSOs are funded exclusively by private donations, three are exclusively
dependent on public funding and two have a mixed scheme composed of private
donations and public funding.
Among the policy making institutions, one is operating on all levels (local, regional,
national and international), one is operating on the regional, national and
international levels and one at the regional and national levels.
Regarding the interviewed research institutions, four of them have been operating on
all levels (local, regional, national and international), and one on the regional and
national level.
Regarding the structure and human resources, in three of the CSOs the staff is
mixed, consisting of professionals and volunteers, in five only professionals are
working.
In all of the three contacted policy making institutions all employees are
professionals. Regarding research institutions the numbers are as follows: in three of
them only professionals are employed, in two the interviewees also mentioned
interns and people who are writing their master or doctoral thesis and are therefore
not considered as professionals.
13 interviewees have been working between 1 and 10 years for the respective
institution the other three for more than 10 years, with one representative of a
research institute working there for 27 years.
TUD
A total of 13 interviews have been carried out between January and April 2009. All
interviews were face to face. The locations were Brussels, Berlin, Bonn and Dresden,
at the interviewee’s office or a semi-public place (conference room, cafeteria, trade
fair/exhibition). All interviews were conducted in English or German. Some of them
were recorded while others were reconstructed from notes taken during the interview.
The interview partners can be categorized as follows: seven come from a policy
related background; five are working in CSOs or CSO Umbrella Organisations; one
can be specified as RTD performer.
AFREPREN/FWD
AFREPREN/FWD interviewed a total of 22 stakeholders representing the civil
society, the research sector and the policy making level.
A majority of 60% of the interview partners are representatives from CSOs. Kenya
has been fortunate in having a good representation of CSOs at all levels. The
majority of Kenyan CSOs operate at the grassroots level, fewer CSOs operate at the
national level. A very small number operates at the subregional/ international level.
Further interviews have been conducted with members of Government institutions,
namely the Ministry of Energy and the National Bureau of Statistics, as well as with
representatives from national research/marketing institutions and a private research
institution. The findings from the interview with a private market research institution
were intended to be used to elaborate how CSOs can collaborate and cooperate with
research and technology developers.
The interview with the Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics was primarily aimed at
gauging the parastatal’s opinion on CSOs and their integration in research and
decision making processes.
The study revealed that 36% of the CSOs interviewed are engaged in energy and
environment. The majority of CSOs (64%) are less engaged in energy/environment
and more active in other areas such as poverty reduction (36%); gender-related
activities (14%); humanitarian services (7%); and national statistics (7%). Therefore,
very few CSOs have their primary focus on energy but on other themes which
however have some connection to or implications on energy. These other themes
include:
• Natural resources;
• Community empowerment programmes for different groups including women,
youth and vulnerable persons;
• Capacity development on health communication materials development;
• Health inequalities in Kenya;
• Food and nutrition security in the face of HIV/AIDS;
• Policy advocacy on food security, marginalisation of pastoralists and altitudinal
change, campaigns and media on climate change, specific project
implementation.
55% of the contacted CSOs are privately funded while 18% are affiliated to the
Government and funded from the national budget appropriated by the Parliament. In
27% of the cases, the CSOs reported that their funding comes from “other” sources
including member contributions.
CU-IARS
CU-IARS team conducted 31 interviews. 17 interviews were carried out with
representatives from RTD and Policy making agencies, 14 with members from Civil
Society Organisations (CSOs). With other words, in total, 45% of the interview
partners are representatives from CSOs, 55% from research institutes, public sector
and governmental agencies.
The majority of the interviews were conducted face-to-face, some by telephone or by
e-mail, particularly with partners from Morocco and Sudan.
Among the interview partners, 29 are Egyptian organisations, while two are regional
organisations in Sudan and Morocco. The partners are allocated as 20 having
national interests, and 11 having regional and international interests. A majority of 25
are male versus only six female. Most of the contacted partners are in leading
positions in their institutions. A majority of 16 interview partners said their main
activities concern promoting renewable energy technology and awareness raising.
The second most often mentioned field of activity is environmental protection (10
interviewees), while nine stakeholders are concerned with improving the efficiency of
energy devices & equipments and presenting consultations. Just eight partners
pointed out that they are concerned with research in the field of renewable energy. At
the same level, seven mentioned their interest in presenting training courses and
conducting environmental protection activities. Five partners said that the main
activities of their institutions regard the planning of the national use of energy. While
two described their role as publishing institution, one partner mentioned educational
activities as main activity.1 The interviews were conducted in January and February
2009; the time spent was approximately between 30 and 75 minutes for each
interview. As an interesting remark, the CU-IARS team notes that dealing with CSOs
was more easy and flexible than with RTD & policy making partners.
3. Approaches and Experiences
In all four sets of interviews, there was a certain consensus among the interview
partners arguing that the involvement of CSOs in research and research agenda
setting processes is important.
The advantage of CSOs is identified on several levels. As major strength of these
actors, many interview partners mentioned their close contact to the population and,
hence, their knowledge about concerns and the interests of the people. Especially
the know-how of and close contact to energy technology end-users seems interesting
for RTD providers and policy-makers, as was reported by OIIP: “Particularly CSOs
working on the ground have often gained very precise and specific knowledge. For
instance, a CSO operating in the implementation phase of solar energy has usually
gained a lot of expertise on very specific issues.” One interviewee even noted that in
the field of solar energy, “they (CSOs; authors note) might know more about
1 It was possible to give several answers to the question about main activities.
technical problems, such as the weld seam, or with customs regulations, than
anyone else.”
The form and moment of involvement
Most interviews conducted with European stakeholders indicated that the main form
and approach of CSO involvement in research initiatives is through their engagement
in research or technology development projects. This involvement can take place at
different levels, either at the beginning, in the definition and set-up phase, or at the
end, in the implementation and dissemination process, or also in the entire research
cycle.
The interviews have shown that in general the major contact and cooperation CSOs
have with researchers is in the field of implementation, dissemination and awareness
raising of new technologies and research results, by the end of a project, when the
main research activities have all been carried out. Based on its interviews, OIIP
remarked that because of their practical knowledge, CSOs are involved in the
evaluation and implementation processes of wind, solar or biomass station projects.
Hence, their involvement almost exclusively takes place in the framework of projects
and not in the research process itself. Especially in technical research, the
involvement of CSOs seems rather limited and negligible in the real research and
development process. Researchers mainly get back to them regarding dissemination
activities. As mentioned by one interviewed stakeholder, “new technologies leave the
lab, then they have to be tested and then in most of the cases they have to go back
to the lab. In this process CSOs are extremely important. CSOs are rather acting as
a link between the supplier and the end user.” In a similar way, “their major
advantage is that they are bringing the theory into practice. They have the ability to
popularise science.”
This finding was confirmed by the outcomes of the interviews conducted by TUD.
According to these results, a major reason for RTD performers to cooperate with
CSOs is to promote acceptance for new policies or technologies. Companies as well
as research (and other lobby) institutions might try to get in touch with CSOs to
broaden their network and use CSOs to raise acceptance and sympathy in the
society. In this perspective, some of TUD’s interview partners emphasised that CSOs
are likely to be used by research and technology developers as well as by politicians
as “tools” of dissemination and response testing: If a new policy or a new technology
is to be applied, CSO involvement can be crucial for its success.
Involving a CSO by the end of the project, as soon as it is clear that some new policy
or technology has to be implemented, however, often encourages allegations of
abuse - which might even be true in some cases. If CSOs receive generous
donations in order to promote a certain policy or technology, it obviously raises the
suspicion of corruption. These allegations most often focus on cases where a CSO is
asked to promote a new technology or policy, which is considered not to completely
fit into its concept and receives compensations for doing so.
According to the interviews, CSOs are less often involved from the research process’
beginning on. TUD’s interview partners reported only a few examples where CSOs
had been involved very early in the process. CSOs are often the only contacts who
actually know the economic, social and even moral or traditional structures and
conditions of a particular area. If a CSO is involved right from the start, there is a fair
chance that acceptance will be much higher. However, cases where CSOs stay
involved during the entire research process are not very frequent.
Similar results were reported by CU-IARS whose interview activities were focussing
on the situation in Northern Africa. A significant number of the contacted
stakeholders argued that the appropriate models or forms for CSO involvement in
research processes is the dissemination of ideas and findings provided by research
centres, as well as making them applicable for the end-user and the population in
general. Many research centres do not consider research as a field of activity for
CSOs. As mentioned by one partner, “CSOs should not work in the field of scientific
research, but apply new models, helping spreading new energy culture”. This point of
view was even confirmed by some CSO representatives interviewed by CU-IARS.
In the specific field of sustainable energy, the actual role of CSOs in Northern Africa
was mainly seen in making campaigns to raise public awareness on new
technologies, and disseminate knowledge in form of posters, brochures or
newsletters.
Regarding the cooperation between CSOs and policy making actors in Kenya in the
field of energy, the Kenyan partner AFREPREN/FWD highlighted a quite similar
situation. Here as well, the main strength of CSOs is seen in activities of advocacy,
lobbying and grass root mobilisations, both, locally and internationally. Indeed, CSOs
mainly collaborate in information sharing and dissemination, as well as in
strengthening linkages with other organisations. In this perspective, policymakers
involve CSOs as this may help them to create a stronger voice and to reach a wider
proportion of the population.
Involvement according to type and size of CSOs
Another interesting remark recorded in this perspective is that the level and approach
of involvement can vary according to different types and forms of CSOs. The
interviews conducted by OIIP allowed for instance to identify four different cases
according to the experiences described by the different stakeholders.
A first one can be defined as “Implementing CSOs”. The cooperation with the RTD
sector is here mainly based on the CSOs’ activities to implement new technologies
and research results. Two of OIIP’s interview partners even came from CSOs that
had been created with the specific objective of implementing and raising awareness
on sustainable energy technologies on a local level. They evolved as researchers’
needs to test their technologies met with local municipalities’ willingness to apply
these new findings. Both interview partners mentioned that in both cases it was one
committed person within the local administration, who made things happen. Both
CSOs were created to apply the new technology on the ground. They promote the
respective technology which was developed by a research institute. Due to their
practical experience and the know-how they gained in the field, they play an
important role for further development of the respective technology. These CSOs are
often difficult to distinguish from companies, as their activities are sometimes close to
commercial functions. After all, in both cases observed, smaller sub-companies –
selling and offering services – arose as a side product of the respective project.
A second type can be classified as “Lobbying CSOs”, as they are mainly involved in
promoting certain issues on a societal and political level. Their lobbying often opens
up doors as their campaigns raise awareness for specific topics and problems. In this
perspective, these CSOs are in contact with RTD performers as they are trying to
promote, influence or even support new technologies and produce reports or papers.
In contrast to the first type, these CSOs are more supportive and actively engaged in
getting into contact with the research sector. Nevertheless, they are rarely directly
involved in research processes. The focus of their involvement is on the production of
publications that support their objectives and goals.
Closely connected to this group, OIIP identified so called “Interest Group CSOs”.
While also lobbying for specific objectives or technologies, these actors try, in
addition, also to support their agenda through research commissioned to research
centres or institutes, or by being actively involved in data collection in the course of
evaluation processes themselves.
The fourth group of CSOs encountered were those which are active in the field of
information, dissemination and social transformation. They are generally operating on
the ground. Therefore they can be classified as “Grassroots CSOs”.
While the so called “Implementation CSOs” and “Interest Group CSOs” are those
who are most involved in R&D processes, “Lobbying CSOs” and “Grassroots CSOs”
are hardly a part of technological development and research processes.
Linked to this idea, TUD reported that the form, type, success and intensity of
involvement can vary according to the degree of organisation. During the
assessment activities, the team from TUD identified a number of large-scale CSOs
representing smaller ones, all having similar aims, objectives and fields of activities.
By joining such “Umbrella CSOs”, smaller actors can enhance their position and build
on often already established channels, contacts and approaches. Hence, it allows to
strengthen ones own voice and increase the impact on research and policy
processes. In addition, umbrella organisations also provide a forum for intensive
communication, encourage get-together and networking activities with other players
in the field and ease the creation of synergies. Although the existence of umbrella
organisations in the field of energy has not been recorded in the assessment
activities carried out in Africa, all except two of the interviewed Kenyan CSOs
indicated that they regularly network and cooperate with other CSOs, notably through
holding joint conferences and workshops. This was mainly done to increase their
impact on energy related policy-making processes. However, these activities were
not based on common organisational and institutional frameworks, such as in the
case of the European umbrella organisations.
The nature of contacts
Regarding the way networking between CSOs and other stakeholders is generally
initiated and configurated, many interview partners in Europe and in Africa
emphasised the informal and often personal nature of contacts.
OIIP reported in this concern that cooperation between CSOs, research institutions
and the policy making level are usually based on earlier projects, on different
international networks and fora, or quite often on very informal and personal
contacts, such as personal acquaintances from conferences or workshops.
Sometimes it may occur that the membership in local, regional or national councils
and boards – including both, representatives of CSOs and research institutions – has
established the contact.
Confirming this informal and personal basis of the relationship between CSOs and
RTD performers, the interview results from TUD also showed that cooperation often
consequently remains on a very ad-hoc level, which, according to some contacted
stakeholders, may to a large degree be due to the lack of funding. In return,
regarding the relationship between CSOs and the policy-making level, TUD identified
a number of interesting approaches based on a more formalized way of CSO
involvement in policy-making processes. Especially political institutions on the
European level often have standard procedures of CSO integration. As a matter of
principle, members of the European Parliament, for instance, usually meet with
CSOs when visiting EU member countries. Left parties are even approaching the
principle of integrating CSOs into the Joint Parliamentary Committees. The effective
dimension of CSO involvement in parliamentary committees and other political
processes nevertheless seems to differ within the political spectrum as well as the
subject concerned: while left parties generally are more open and willing to integrate
CSOs in decision-making processes, conservative or right-wing parties tend to be
more reluctant. Those political distinctions are, however, overcome by the subject: In
general, in environmental questions, it is more likely that the participation of civil
society actors in decision-making is accepted than in other sectors.
In the European Parliament, CSO representatives are frequently heard as experts in
political committees. The decision about who gets invited is made by the rapporteur’s
office, the head of the committee and/or the particular committee’s office/secretariat.
In Germany, interview partners mentioned the phenomenon of the
“Verbändeanhörung”, which presents a specific step within the legislation processes,
where several organisations and associations involved in the subject are heard by a
committee. Here, again, large or umbrella CSOs have better chances of obtaining a
seat in these hearings than smaller actors. Also, according to some interviewees,
personal contacts may play a crucial role.
The interviews conducted by CU-IARS with North-African stakeholders revealed that
21 out of the 31 consulted representatives on the CSO, RTD and policy making level
confirmed that they were regularly networking or cooperating with each other.
However, further inquiry clearly showed also here that most of these efforts were
based on personal and informal contacts. There is no general trend towards
institutionalised CSO involvement at all. Indeed, formal networking and coordination
within official agreement or frameworks is rather underdeveloped for stakeholders
who work in the area of renewable energy. According to CU-IARS’ interview partners,
this is mainly due to problems of lacking trust, as well as knowledge of each other’s
activities, national or other policies, and programmes that could be used as
appropriate and supportive framework.
A slightly different picture was drawn in Kenya. Here, some of the CSOs contacted
by AFREPREN/FWD had quite close contacts to policy makers and policy making
institutions, as well as to the media and the press, which partly build the base of their
involvement in energy research and policy activities. Similar to what has been
reported by TUD regarding the situation in Europe, the interview partners from
AFREPREN/FWD also underlined that such close connections can also generate a
bad image of being derailed by vested interests, or frequently shifting their focus
according to political interests and funding opportunities.
4. Need for Action
The interviews conducted in Europe and Africa allowed to identify a couple of
problems and difficulties that currently impede and limit the involvement of civil
society actors in energy research and agenda setting processes and hence have to
be solved.
The problem of funding
One major issue concerns the question of funding and financial resources. Many of
the interviewed stakeholders complained indeed that it was rather difficult to find any
appropriate funding necessary for supporting the cooperation. For CSOs, this lack
clearly limits the possibilities to contact the RTD level and propose any form of
cooperation. For researchers, on the other hand, the involvement of CSOs in their
activities may prove difficult as long as this networking is not based on any
substantial funding.
Regarding the research level, stakeholders mentioned that they are most often
dependent from external funding to cover their projects and activities. According to
the results recorded by OIIP, in Europe especially private research institutes are less
and less able to do basic research due to lack in funding. Therefore, they are
increasingly forced to work on a commercial basis and have to get financial funding
for every new project they aim to pursue. Usually struggling with their own financial
problems, CSOs are hardly ever thought of being attractive financial partners for
these research institutions.
This problem was also noted by TUD. Here, interview partners underlined that
usually most CSOs do not have enough money to initiate or promote research in a
specific field. This is problematic regarding their involvement in research processes,
as research institutions are most often not in search of unfunded research
suggestions.
Generally speaking in Europe, if research institutes respond to research suggestions
from outside, those have to be funded. Nevertheless, this funding rarely allows and
even foresees the involvement of “external” actors coming from the civil society.
On the other side, some of the European RTD performers also pointed to the fact
that working with CSOs may also have an economic component. As shown by the
results from OIIP, CSOs are considered as “being much cheaper than professional
consultants; they work harder for less money. They have many young, committed
people who are working with passion. However, it is difficult to direct them, because
they have an agenda and they are trying to promote their ideology. They are very
creative but often they are lacking an efficient commando structure.”
In this concern, the situation recorded in Africa is less evident. Here as well, many
stakeholders have complained that the lack of appropriate funds and funding
programmes largely hinders the development of research cooperation involving
CSOs. As particularly pointed out by CU-IARS, many researchers especially blame
the government for not providing sufficient funds to support research projects and
development processes in the field of renewable energies that could also include the
possibility to involve actors from the civil society in some activities.
In contrast, some of the interviewed African RTD performers mentioned the fact that
in view of this lack of national research funds, the involvement of CSOs can also
present a possibility of having access to financial resources provided by international
donors. The crucial role of CSOs is hereby seen in the fact that they are often having
better connections to international donor organisations and, therefore, can attract
international funds. This finding has been confirmed by the interview outcomes from
the team of AFREPREN/FWD who reported that some of the contacted CSOs
maintained close relations to international NGOs, international organisations or other
donor agencies. One CSO was able to approach the African Development Bank
(AfDB) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) for the funding of
a project to increase off grid electrification through use of sugarcane waste (bagasse)
in the generation of electricity.
The problem related to this form of foundation for CSO-RTD cooperation is the
potentially bad image of the CSO which may be produced. As noted by several
Kenyan interview partners, a strong funding through international donors can create
the impression that CSOs easily shift their aims and visions according to the interests
of the donor community. “Depending on the current requirements by the donor, some
CSOs have abandoned some of their key focus areas to explore the donors’
endeavours.” This impression is shared by some stakeholders interviewed in Egypt
who believed that “most of them (the CSOs) use the energy site as a source to have
the fund so that most of them work in environmental issues.”
Additionally, the AFREPREN results allow to draw the conclusion that because of this
assumption, CSOs are often not accepted by Government institutions as they are
perceived as donor mouthpieces. For instance, data or information originating from
independent CSOs is treated with suspicion by government bodies.
The problem of lacking trust
The issue of lacking trust towards CSOs was also raised by the European partners,
although in a different context.
According to the findings from OIIP, stakeholders from the policy making as well as
from the research level often relate CSOs to specific ideas and ideologies. Especially
in the field of sustainable energies, CSOs are often seen as pursuing a specific
agenda and aiming to have confirmed their theses. In this regard, one interviewed
researcher underlined: “when you include a CSO, you have to know that you are also
buying a certain ideology”.
The question of professionalism and administrative strength
Closely linked to this idea, the effective involvement of CSOs in research or agenda
setting processes may also be impeded by the impression that CSOs lack
professionalism and administrative strength. As one of the main reasons for the weak
involvement of CSOs, some of the European interview partners argued that civil
society institutions are often lacking scientific staff. According to them, these
organisations usually do not consist of (mainly) professionals but are rather grouped
around one or a couple of motivated (non-scientific) people. However, involvement in
research projects would require technical experts, as well as capacities for
administrative work that most of the CSOs do not provide. Referring to their
interviews’ outcomes, OIIP and TUD both noted that CSOs are often considered as
being built on weak personal structures. CSOs often have the image of having
insufficient institutional strength and of facing administrative obstacles when it comes
to meeting high formal standards and performing administrative work. A leading
representative of an independent research institute interviewed by OIIP added that
“you (also) have the problem if one person leaves the organisation, the whole project
might collapse.” This perception was confirmed by the team from TUD. Several of
their interview partners indeed mentioned the problem that the structure of CSOs can
easily change when only one or a few persons leave. Cooperation, however, must be
able to rely on a long-term partnership and reliable structures and agreements.
The other side of the coin has been underlined in the interviews conducted by
AFREPREN/FWD. Here some stakeholder underlined that CSOs are, in return, often
less bureaucratic and more flexible than other organisations. Especially compared to
governmental bodies or parastatals, they appear much less bureaucratic and, thus,
far more flexible. Two of the government-funded CSOs interviewed reported a long
procurement process which has in the past led to some research projects being
delayed, only because of the fact that some approvals are linked to other government
departments or ministries. This has resulted in some projects being abandoned as a
result of escalated costs regarding the procurement of equipment or technical skills.
The problem of lacking contact and communication
A further problem pointed out in the interviews is the lack of possibilities for different
stakeholders working in the field of sustainable energies to know each other, get in
contact with and meet them. One CSO interview partner from OIIP pointed out that
scientists are often sitting in their “ivory tower”, having no interest in getting in touch
with the reality or in cooperating with non-scientific partners. This insufficient
exchange between CSOs and researchers is, however, likely to nourish false
impressions and distrust and hence to further impede cooperation. Notably the often
mentioned lack of trust in CSOs as reliable partners in research and agenda-setting
processes is in many cases based on a simple lack of knowledge on their work, aims
and structures.
More possibilities for multi-stakeholder meeting, exchange and sharing of knowledge
and experience are therefore needed in view of building trust and stimulating new
forms of cooperation.
The need to promote networking among CSOs
Another often addressed challenge is the need to better connect CSOs and further
channel their interests. Indeed, as many interviews have allowed to show, the lacking
participation of CSOs is often based on their weak structure and inability to make
their voices heard. Because of their isolated acting, they are often not well known
and recognized, and, hence, not approached by other stakeholders. By bundling
interests, small CSOs should make an effort in networking to find partners with
similar aims. This could make them much stronger and appear as relevant partners
for researchers, RTD performers and policy makers. In Europe this has led to the
creation of many umbrella organisations or governing bodies. If a European CSO
wants to get in touch with other players in the same field and strengthen its own
voice, the best way to do so is to join such an umbrella organisation, as has been
reported by several concerned CSO representatives interviewed in Europe.
Similar examples are currently also gaining ground on the African continent, albeit
slowly. In the interviews conducted in Kenya by AFREPREN/FWD, 18 of the 20
interviewed CSO representatives reported that they regularly carry out joint activities
with other CSOs working in the same field, mainly in form of joint conferences or
workshops. On the occasion of an impending energy-related bill, for instance, several
CSOs have come together to review the bill in order to reach a common position
regarding the strengths, weaknesses and omissions of the bill.
Among the CSOs interviewed by CU-IARS, many considered the idea of joining an
umbrella organisation as an effective approach for increasing the possibilities to
cooperate with each other, as well as with research centres. Umbrellas are indeed
seen as a “useful tool in enhancing the role of civil society organisations and taking
an advanced position in determining the nation energy policies.” Besides facilitating
the networking among their members, these coalitions can also promote the
formation of cooperation and links with public authorities.
The need for supportive legislations
Another supportive factor, mentioned in the interviews, may be the existence of
national or regional legislations that promote and frame multi-stakeholder
cooperation in the field of sustainable energy.
Notably, the results from the TUD team emphasised the importance of legal frames
and governmental political will to support and/or implement sustainable energy and
thus promote and support technological development and implementation for the
enhancement of CSO involvement. The team reported the example of Germany
where the legal setting has become much more favourable to CSOs since the
“Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz”, the Renewable Energy Law, has been adopted in
2008. In Germany, renewable energies are supported by the national government
and there are many CSOs working in this field. Since those organisations are mostly
well linked, it is rather easy for other stakeholders to get in touch with them – or at
least know how to contact their umbrella organisations.
In contrast, many stakeholders from the Mediterranean region interviewed by CU-
IARS mentioned the lack of a national policy to promote renewable energies as
important reason for the underdevelopment of CSO involvement and multi-
stakeholder cooperation in this field. According to these actors, the adoption of such
a policy could present an additional incentive for RTD performers to conduct more
research in this field and to build on the knowledge civil society actors have already
gathered. Additional national financial support could moreover foster this
cooperation.
5. Concluding remarks, recommendations and outlook
The 80 interviews conducted in Europe and Africa with stakeholders from the civil
society, the RTD and the policy-making level concerned with energy and sustainable
energy issues allowed to raise a number of ideas and recommendations in view of
enhancing and improving the involvement of civil society actors in research and
research agenda setting processes.
These recommendations all build on the major needs and weaknesses that have
been revealed by the assessment of the current situation and existing involvement
approaches. The current difficulties and lack in sufficient and satisfactory involvement
of civil society actors in such processes can indeed be related to three intertwined
key problems that have been observed and reported from stakeholders in Europe
and in Africa.
The problem of limited transparency
The first and also central problem – for the RTD and the policy-making level – is, in
fact, the limited information available on CSOs involved in initiatives aiming to
promote the use and production of sustainable energy sources. RTD performers
often do not know if and which civil society groups are active in their field of research
and, hence, could be contacted, consulted or integrated into the process. But also
the other way round, CSOs are mostly not aware of research initiatives being started
or lead by universities, research centres or institutes to which they could contribute
very well with their know-how and experience. Often they have no information whom
to contact in order to share their knowledge of the needs, interests and concerns of
the population affected by new developments and technologies and thereby
complement research activities. Furthermore, at the same time, CSOs are also not
aware of other civil society initiatives active in the same field that have similar or
complementary objectives and activities. This ignorance deprives them from the
possibility of networking and initiating joint activities which could help them to
increase their voice and the impact of their activities.
Indeed, more transparency would be important for CSOs to strengthen their capacity
and contribute to research and agenda-setting processes, as it could allow them to
be better known and find synergies with other stakeholders while avoiding duplication
and competition.
The lack of opportunities to meet and exchange
The second problem recorded is the lack of appropriate opportunities for
stakeholders to get in touch and exchange ideas, information and concerns.
However, such spaces for dialogue would be important in view of setting the ground
for further cooperation and partnerships. The interview results have indeed shown
that RTD performers or policy-makers, wiling to engage representatives of the civil
society into their activities, often simply do not know where to get in touch with
appropriate partners. As a consequence, they may refer to the personal contacts
they have already established for instance through conferences, trainings or former
projects, which is not always the best solution.
Missing support and funding mechanisms
And third, there seems to be a need for stronger mechanisms and structures to
promote and also financially support cooperation between CSOs and researchers in
the field of sustainable energy. Currently, the ability of CSOs to engage in research
and the willingness of RTD performers to set up partnerships with civil society actors
is often constricted by limited funding and institutional support. Additionally, in most
cases, there are still few (public) policies, such as the German Law of Renewable
Energy, that may act as driving force to stimulate and encourage networking between
researchers and the civil society in view of promoting the development of research
more relevant to the diverse concerns of society. Moreover, it needs to be ensured
that information about proper cooperation opportunities and support mechanisms is
made available to both, CSOs and scientists, at the same time and in the same way.
With regard to these key problems, the following recommendations have been
derived from the interviews.
Provide more possibilities for CSOs to get their pr ofile known
As has been made evident by all four sets of interviews, the lack of available
information on CSOs presents a key barrier towards enhancing their engagement in
energy research and research agenda setting processes. Especially smaller groups
in Africa located on the grass-root level often encounter problems to disseminate
information about their objectives and activities, or even their existence, and are
consequently not or rarely contacted by research centres. Therefore, transparency
would be crucial, also in view of avoiding stereotypes or unjustified mistrust, often
based on incomplete information.
The dissemination of information could be improved through different ways.
Possibilities are the regular organisation of local, national or regional meetings,
workshops or trainings gathering different stakeholders working in the same field, the
collection of databases, or drawing maps which localise different actors, or the set up
of open and free accessible internet fora and platforms.
Internet is certainly the easiest and cheapest way for information dissemination. As
especially smaller CSOs, grassroots movements or other CSOs in African countries
often do not have their own websites. Open web-based platforms could give them the
possibility to disseminate their profile and raise awareness on their activities and
goals. The establishment of such a common platform would also be helpful for larger
and already better known CSOs to inform about recent activities and promote their
own websites.
At the same time, more information on RTD performers and centres, easily
accessible and understandable for civil society actors, would break up the often used
picture of the scientific community as isolated and inapproachable “Ivory Tower”.
Several already - notably on the European level - established internet information
platforms could serve as models. The interview partners of TUD, for instance, direct
the attention to the website of “ManagEnergy”, which provides information on
European actors in the field of energy. With the major aim of facilitating the
composition of project consortia, the website includes a partner search engine that
allows to identify stakeholders and institutions working in specific areas and topics.
www.managenergy.net
Another positive example certainly is the internet network RIAED, set up within a
project funded by the EC Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE), the Institut de
l’énergie et de l’environnement de la francophonie (IEPF) and the Agence de
l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME). The network gathers
information on francophone experts and stakeholders in all parts of the world active
in the field of access to renewable energies. www.riaed.net
However, it has to be noted that most of these platforms have either a clear
European or more general and international scope. The assessment indeed revealed
that no internet forum or exchange board addresses the specific situation on the
African continent and would allow civil, scientific and policy making stakeholders from
African countries or with a specific African focus and working in the field of
sustainable energies to present themselves and their activities.
Facilitate and encourage multi-stakeholder dialogue
As has been mentioned by several interviewed stakeholders, the willingness and
interest in getting in contact and establish research partnerships is often impeded by
the lack or ignorance of appropriate networking opportunities. Also in this case, the
organisation of meetings or conference gathering different representatives may
present a suitable approach for improvement.
By the way, this has been shown by the SustainergyNet Fellow-up Workshop hold at
Cairo University in June 2009 to respond to the frequently raised need of CU-IARS’
interview partners for more multi-stakeholder meeting events. Besides these effective
but often rather costly and complicated meetings, the internet presents a particularly
suitable medium as it allows stakeholders to get together, regardless of time, location
and capacities, and to reach a very large community.
Provide more information about networking opportuni ties
Information about networking opportunities need to be available to all interested and
concerned stakeholders in order to avoid that they are only known and used by a
limited number of persons. Yet again, internet platforms could be used to widely
disseminate information on workshops, conferences and other meeting opportunities
for stakeholders as well as on helpful internet forums.
In this regard, one of the interview partners from OIIP referred to the EU FP7 project
Action-Town. www.action-town.eu.
Action-Town is a virtual reflection of the common activities of civil society
organisations and research organisations for Sustainable Consumption & Production
(SCP). The Action Town project focuses on concrete actions by creating partnerships
between CSOs and research organisations to increase involvement of the former.
The civil society is encouraged to provide new insights for increasing efficiency of
policy strategies, assessment tools and indicators for sustainable consumption and
production through small-scale exploratory actions.
Create a supportive infrastructure
Besides information on relevant stakeholders and meeting opportunities, financial
support can be considered as major driving force if sufficiently available and known,
or as significant barrier for CSO involvement if limited or lacking at all.
As all four sets of interviews have shown, the willingness to engage civil society
organisations in research processes is in many cases constricted by the limited own
resources of these actors and the lack of appropriate support mechanisms.
To solve this problem and promote further and stronger multi-stakeholder
cooperation, there is a need for new and innovative funding programmes that
specifically address this issue. A promising example is certainly the Science and
Society Programme line, which is part of the Research Framework Programme.
Through this programme, the European Commission has acknowledged the need to
better link scientific research with societal concerns and pave the way for stronger
civil society engagement in research projects and initiatives.
The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, moreover, also takes
into consideration this need by proposing a new specific funding scheme. This so
called “Research for the Benefit of Specific Groups” has especially been set up to
promote and encourage the active participation of civil society organisations (BSG-
CSO) in research and network activities and the creation of multi-stakeholder
consortia.
Also on the national level there exist several promising initiatives that may serve as
best-practice models, as has for instance been mentioned by some of OIIP’s
interview partners.
For instance, the Austrian program Provision is a platform for sustainable
development which funds projects with practical relevance, within the framework of
Agenda 21. Every year two calls consider the needs of local Agenda 21 groups
(NGOs) and call for project funding applications, whereby project teams have to
include researchers. Usually, Agenda 21 groups involve researchers and not the
other way round, as they have more experiences and access to funding possibilities.
In a quite similar way, the Klimaschutzfond is an Austrian climate protection fund
where the participation of CSOs in research projects is relatively high.
Nevertheless, information on or access to such instruments is often limited,
especially for smaller CSOs and CSOs in Africa. Here again, specific infrastructure
and awareness raising measures would be needed to allow these groups to benefit
from these opportunities.
Several interview partners in Europe and in Africa have pointed to the role umbrella
organisations could play to get these movements out of their isolated position and
strengthen their capacities and abilities to take advantage of network possibilities.
However, as has been underlined by the interview results from TUD, to join an
umbrella organisation may also present some disadvantages, such as the regular
payment of member fees to maintain the organisation. These barriers have to be
reduced, for instance by specific public support measures, in view of further
encouraging the creation and joining of umbrella organisations, as well as better
structuring the civil society level in the field of sustainable energy.
Not surprisingly, also the role of policy makers, and especially the enhancement of
cooperation between civil society organisations and policy actors is crucial. Indeed,
regular dialogue and interaction between CSOs and the local policy making level are
important to further emphasise the societal relevance of research, especially in the
field of sustainable energy. AFREPREN/FWD mentioned in the report on their
interviews the example of a joint meeting initiated by the Ministry of Energy with
various stakeholders to discuss the proposed National Energy Policy and give the
invited stakeholders the possibility to comment and criticize the document. Although
such measures are indeed helpful for influencing the scope and definition of research
needs, and, thus, encouraging RTD performers to work more closely with the civil
society, it is important to ensure that also smaller actors have the possibility to attend
such meetings or, at least, be able to express their point of view, represented by an
umbrella organisation. Here again, information when and where such meetings take
place should be disseminated via openly accessible websites or forums.
Furthermore, also the European example of regular meetings and communication
between European members of Parliament and the civil society is very interesting
and its transferability should be further analysed. However, in order to ease these
exchanges, it would be possible to carry them out virtually through an appropriate
website or forum. This again would allow a broader participation and, moreover,
allow the involvement of smaller and less known CSOs.
Promote CSO involvement in the entire RTD process
All these measures should allow to ensure an engagement of CSO actors and
organisations within the entire research process, as well as to overcome the current
situation of partial engagement, mainly in dissemination and implementation
activities.
It is important to make more evident, on the one hand, the societal relevance of
research, and, on the other hand, the importance of and possible benefits from CSO
involvement.
As has been recommended by several interviewed stakeholders in Europe and
Africa, the involvement of CSOs from the beginning of the research or technology
development process on, is indeed crucial in order to ensure the applicability and
usability of research outcomes and new technologies. As has been recorded by OIIP,
“one should look in the planning phase how things can be transferred, not only
afterwards. The principle of usability could be also applied in the field of technological
research. CSOs know what the critical issues are. (RTD actors) could better assess if
they would exchange with CSOs in an early stage.” In order to overcome the often
mentioned isolation of researchers from society, one of the OIIP interview partners
recommended to carry out a sounding of the market with the help of CSOs before
initiating research process, in order to detect the needs of the market. As a
representative of a so called “Implementing CSO” he added, ”sometimes we, as
those who are supposed to apply, are facing serious problems in the implementation
of new technologies, because they were developed secluded from practical needs.”
A promising model identified by the team from TUD might be the so-called “Think-do-
tanks”. These partnerships, currently mainly evolving in Brussels, involve research
institutions (including universities) and CSOs, and particularly emphasise the
participation and practical advice of civil society actors throughout the entire research
process.
Raise the awareness on the benefits of CSO involvem ent
The interviews conducted in Africa and in Europe have clearly shown that the field of
action and engagement of CSOs in research processes is still most often primarily
seen in implementation and dissemination activities. This not only concerns research
and RTD actors who are still rather reluctant to cooperate with actors from the civil
society they consider as ideology-marked or institutionally weak. It also concerns the
CSOs themselves. They see their major role in transferring ideas and technologies to
the population, whereas researchers – in their eyes – are too far from reality, and
research questions lack relevance for society. However, the cooperation of
researchers and civil society organisations in common activities throughout the entire
research process is crucial in order to ensure that scientific and technological
findings and outcomes meet the society’s needs and, thus, contribute to a more
sustainable production and use of energy. To achieve stronger CSO involvement in
research processes, it is essential to also ensure the participation of representatives
from the civil society in research policy agenda setting processes in order to have
CSOs express their views and ideas where research should be conducted.
In order to raise more awareness on this value-add, it would be useful to provide
more information on cases of successful cooperation and other best practices. If
researchers could share their experience in involving CSOs in their research
activities, this could contribute to overcome preconceptions and encourage further
cooperation. Here again, a virtual exchange platform could present a suitable tool.
Improved Features list for the “CSO Involvement Net ”
One of the major objectives of the SustainergyNet project is the elaboration and
implementation of the “CSO Involvement Net”, a web-based tool and network that
shall support Civil Society Organisations towards actively contributing to research
and policy processes. The interviews will be relevant for the set up of this tool in so
far as their outcomes allow to identify informations and inputs, needs and
expectations from concerned stakeholders that shall guide the elaboration process.
The assessment of ideas and estimations on suitable approaches to better know and
integrate the skills and capacities of CSOs, the recording of experiences in
networking with CSOs in sustainable development agenda setting processes, and
the collection of suggestions on how to further encourage and enhance the
cooperation between CSOs, RTD performers and policy makers have been useful to
identify a list of recommendations how to better meet the stakeholders’ expectations
and requirements.
The initial idea of making the tool web-based was mainly confirmed as being the
most adequate way to address as many users as possible.
The following list of features for the future “CSO Involvement Net” need to be
discussed – especially with relevant African stakeholders at the International
Conference in Nairobi and during the e-conference – regarding major questions
about technological and economic restrictions, about access to internet, about
knowledge regarding these possibilities, etc.
• The site should be absolutely clear and not overloaded.
• It should be adjusted to slow internet connections, not to European high-speed
standards (i.e. preferring plain text to graphics and Flash, Javascript etc.), as a
large proportion of users will be located in rural areas without high-speed
internet connections
• It must be ensured that other users cannot upload materials that could slow
down the side.
• Subcategories should be constructed in a manner that information can easily
be found.
• Probably one big difficulty might become the gap between those people we
want to address, and those who will be able to gain access to our platform:
Those people who own the “grassroots knowledge”, that we would like to be
integrated into technology research and development, often do not have
internet access at all (due to lack of rural electrification, hardware and
connection problems). If the dissemination aim of our project plans to involve
those as well, we should include other media. Probably the cheapest and most
popular medium would be the radio: adjusted to the groups we would like to
target, information could be spread about our conference, about the website,
about CSO involvement and its problems and benefits in general. People
could call in by telephone and make statements or search for project partners,
and the CSO Involvement Net could then help to create the links. Best
practice would be to involve local CSOs in the conceptual design and for the
determination of the particular radio station(s).
• It needs to be ensured that the platform will maintain also after the end of the
SustainergyNet project.
• The majority of CSOs are looking for additional information to use as opposed
to exchange with information they already possess. Therefore the CSO
Involvement Net should also include a “Download Centre”. This implies that an
entity shall have to be in charge of searching and collecting relevant data and
information akin to the role AFREPREN/FWD already plays.
• The CSO Involvement Net ought to have a special section targeting
governmental institutions and politicians as they have unique requirements.
• The proposed CSO Involvement Net should also have varied levels of data
and information, in order to meet the needs of grassroots-based CSOs;
national; regional; internationally networked CSOs.
• In order to help minimise duplication of roles among CSOs, there is need for
CSO Involvement Net to have a directory of CSOs with details pertaining to
current and post activities.
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
RASTER FOR CSO INTERVIEW PARTNER (IP) This raster is to help you in recording the background information as well as major information on your interview partner in a way to ease the analysis and comparison of data. Fill out one per interview partner. Before the Dresden meeting, please upload the raster on the restricted area of the SustainergyNet website. (see instructions in Annex to Internal Kick-off report/ FRONT END) • General Information about Interview Partner (IP):
N° Date:
Duration: Location of interview:
Type of IP CSO o
Research Institution o
Other o
If Other, which kind of? Notes:
Position: Country: Sex: Age: Years spent in institution: Leading
o
Not leading
o
Other, specify:
o Institution located in town or countryside:
Town o
Countryside o
Notes:
Operating on which level? Local o
Regional o
National o
International o
Notes:
Major aim of institution or field of activity:
Funding scheme Private Donations o
Public Funding o
Other o
If Other, what kind of? Notes:
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
Structure/ human resources, appx. number
Professionals o
Volunteers o
Other/ Both o
If Other, what kind of? Notes (how many? …):
Notes:
• Involvement:
Cooperation, networking with?
Other CSOs
o
Research Institutions/ Researchers
o
Policy-makers
o
None o
Others =
Form, nature of cooperation?
On which level? Local o
Regional o
National o
International o
How/ by whom is cooperation organised/ initiated?
How often and regularly are you involved in Research processes?
Why is it important (for IP) to cooperate with researchers? Objectives?
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
Why is it important (for you) to cooperate with policy-making level? Objectives?
Major problems, weaknesses of CSO involvement in Research
Good experiences, best practices, any appropriate models, forms for CSO involvement
Other remarks
Notes:
• Recommendations:
Recommendations:
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
RASTER FOR INTERVIEW PARTNER FROM RTD and POLICY-MA KING LEVEL
This raster is to help you in recording the background information as well as major information on your interview partner in a way to ease the analysis and comparison of data. Fill out one per interview partner. Before the Dresden meeting, please upload the raster on the restricted area of the SustainergyNet website.
1. General Information about Interview Partner (IP):
N° Date: Duration: Location of interview:
Type of IP Governmental Organization
o
Other Public
Institution
o
Non-Governmental Organization
o
Other
o
If Other which kind of?
Position: Country: Sex: Age: Years spent in institution:
Leading
o
Not leading
o
Other, specify:
o
Operating on which level?
Local
o
Regional
o
National
o
International
o
Notes:
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
Major aim of institution or field of activity
Structure/ Human Resources (appx. number of professionals/ volunteers/ scientists)
Professionals
o
Volunteers
o
Other/ Both
o
If Other, what kind of? Comments:
Notes:
2. Cooperation and Networking with CSOs
Is Networking and Cooperation with CSOs Regular?
Yes
o
No
o
Form and Approach (any specific setting, frame)
On which level? Local
o
Regional
o
National
o
International
o
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
How/ by whom is the cooperation organised/ initiated?
National, international context behind (any policy, regulation, setting)
Why do you think cooperation with CSOs is/is not important?
On which topics are you networking with CSOs?
Value-add of CSOs (what expertise, know-how…)
Major advantages
Problems and risks?
Notes:
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
3. Recommendations
Recommendations:
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
3
Annex 1: List of Interview Partners Interviewed Organisation Name in native
language (when specified)
Interviewer Note
Accounting Students Association
- AFREPREN -
AFREPREN
- AFREPREN
-
African Network for Agroforestry Education (ANAFE)
- AFREPREN -
Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien, Berlin
- TUD -
AIESEC Kenya - AFREPREN - The Arab Office for Youth and Environment (AOYE)
Al-Maktab al-Arabi lel-Shabab wal-Be’ah
CU-IARS 2 interviews
Appropriate Technology - AFREPREN - ARC Seibersdorf (Research Centre)
- OIIP
ARGE Güssing - OIIP - ARGE Renewable Energy ARGE Erneuerbare
Energie OIIP -
Basaisa Integrated Community Development Organization
Gam'eyat al- Basaisa le-Tanmiat al-Mogtama'a
CU-IARS -
Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energien e. V., Berlin
- TUD -
Calla, Budweis, Czech Republic - OIIP CSO Carolina 4 Kibera - AFREPREN - Central Association for the Development and Progress of Environmental Technology (CADPET)
al- Gam'eyat al-Markazeya le-Tanmiat wa- Tatweer Technologeya al- Be'ah
CU-IARS 2 interviews
Civil Society Forum for Renewable Energies
Montada al-Mogtamaa'a al-Madani lel-Taqat al- Motagaddeda
CU-IARS 2 interviews
Community of Vaxjö, Sweden - OIIP Community Political Decision Maker
Department of Renewable Energy – Paul Mbuthi
- AFREPREN -
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena), Berlin
- TUD -
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
4
Deutscher Bundestag, Berlin - TUD - Egyptian Association for Water and Energy (EWE)
al-Monazamat al-Masreya lel-Meyah wal- Taqa
CU-IARS -
Elcom – Alakhdar Community Development Organization
Gam'eyat Tanmeyat al-Mogtama'a bel-Kom- al-Akhdar
CU-IARS -
Energieeffizienzprogramm, MA 27, Vienna, Austria
- OIIP Community Political Decision Maker
Energieinstitut der Johannes Kepler Universität, Linz, Austria
- OIIP -
Energiepark Bruck an der Leitha - OIIP -
Environmental Protection and use of Solar Energy NGO (EP-USE)
Monazamat Hemayat al- Be'ah wa Estekhdam al- Taqa al-Shmseya
CU-IARS -
European Commission, Brussels - TUD - European Commission, (GD TREN), Brussels
- TUD -
European Parliament, Brussels - TUD 2 interviews European Renewable Energy Council, Brussels
- TUD -
EUROSOLAR, Bonn - TUD - Evangelical Association for Development
al- Hay'at al-Qepteya al-Enjileya lel-Tanmia
CU-IARS -
Foundation for Woodstove Dissemination
- AFREPREN -
FWD - AFREPREN - Gender sensitive initiative, Kenya
- AFREPREN -
German BioEnergy Association (BBE), Bonn
- TUD -
Greenpeace Austria - OIIP - Hemaya NGO Monazamat
Hemaya CU-IARS -
Honey Suckle Residents - AFREPREN - Horticultural Society of Kenya - AFREPREN - The Hub, Brussels - TUD - I Choose Life - AFREPREN - IGW Interessengemeinschaft Windkraft, Austria
- OIIP -
Institute of Energy Economics, Technical University of Vienna, Austria
- OIIP -
SUSTAINERGYNET – WP2
CSO
4
Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria
- OIIP -
Kenya Association of Manufacturers
- AFREPREN -
Kenya Coalition on Nutrition - AFREPREN - Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
- AFREPREN -
KfW Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Brussels
- TUD -
Laikipia West Students Association
- AFREPREN -
Lebensministerium, Austria - OIIP Federal Ministry
Lokale Agenda 21, Vienna, Austria
- OIIP -
Mbuthia - Socio-Economic Development
- AFREPREN -
Mbuthia - Street Children Rehabilitation
- AFREPREN -
Ministry of Energy, Kenya - AFREPREN 2 interviews Nairobi Youth Counselling Centre
- AFREPREN -
Oxfam GB - AFREPREN - New Horizon Association Mo'asaset Afaq
Gadidah CU-IARS -
Practical Action - AFREPREN - Research International (EA) Ltd - AFREPREN - Rotaract Club of Kenya - AFREPREN - SCP-Centre Wuppertal, Germany
- OIIP Research Centre
SACDEP KENYA - AFREPREN - SKREA, Bratislava, Hungary - OIIP Research
Centre Sustainable Development and Environment Network of Kenya (SENKE)
- AFREPREN -
Unisolar, Dresden - TUD - Values of Life Association (VOLA)
Gam'eyat Qeyam al-Hayah
CU-IARS -
Wadi Environmental Services center (WESC)
Markaz Wadi lel-khadamatt al-Be'aeyah
CU-IARS -