Transcript Cooperation between local and regional authorities

7th International Scientific Conference
on Energy and Climate Change
Athens
8-10 October 2014
Cooperation between local and
regional authorities for sustainable
energy and climate - results of the
European Coopenergy project
Edoardo Croci
IEFE – Bocconi University, Milan
New York City, 2012
Blackout after hurricane Sandy
New York City, 2014
New York City, 2012
People’s Climate March
Blackout after hurricane Sandy
Climate change and its
complex governance
Climate change is unequivocally happening, and GHG emissions
from human activities are recognized as a major cause (IPCC, AR5,
2014).
Two different approaches confront each other:
• A global agreement with compulsory emission reduction Country
targets: averting climate change is a global “public good” and
needs a global solution;
• A decentralized approach based on multiple scale voluntary
actions: “Given the failure to reach agreement at the
international level on efficient, fair, and enforceable reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions, continuing to wait without investing in
efforts at multiple scales may defeat the possibilities of significant
abatements and mitigations in enough time to prevent tragic
disasters” (Olstrom, 2012);
New flexible instruments in
the Kyoto Protocol
Two different mechanisms emerged at COP17 (Durban, 2011) and
are under definition:
• New Market-based Mechanism (NMM)  refers to an
international market mechanism that would be set up and
governed or regulated centrally under UNFCCC;
• Framework for Various Approaches (FVA)  framework that
would leave it up to the countries to define their own
approaches and methodologies in a decentralized manner. Two
alternatives:
 Recognition of units issued by domestic schemes under the
condition that they are approved by a UNFCCC body;
 UNFCCC with no approval power; it would only provide a
general set of common principles and a platform to
exchange information.
Framework of various
approaches
Source: IGES, 2012
6
New Market Mechanism
Source: IGES, 2012
7
Multi-level climate change
governance
• Actions to reduce GHG are already taking place at multiple
scales, through the initiatives of several public and private actors,
which also generate nested, positive externalities;
• A polycentric governance of climate change has thus emerged
over time, which needs to be better understood in terms of its
effectiveness, efficiency, equity and relationship with the global
Kyoto regime;
• In this multi-level context, Regional and Local Authorities are
increasingly committed to energy and climate targets as they
hold several policy levers to promote climate action.
Map of existing, emerging
and potential emissions
trading and carbon tax
schemes
Source: World Bank, 2014
Cities’contribution to energyrelated CO2 emissions
Cities are
responsible for a
relevant share of
global energy
demand and
related CO2
emissions;
according to IEA ‘s
estimations (2008),
urban areas
account for over
67% of energyrelated GHGs,
expected to rise to
74% by 2030.
Source: World Bank (2010)
Largest cities’ contribution
to GHG emissions
and world economy
World Bank (2010) “Cities and Climate Change: an urgent agenda”
11
Relevant sectors
for urban GHG emissions
source: ICLEI, 2011
GDP and carbon emissions in
selected countries and cities
(Source: LSE Cities based on multiple sources, published in UNEP, 2010)
Rationale for action at
regional and local level
• Regional and Local Authorities have several competences and
powers in fields that are relevant for energy use and related
emissions, including transportation and infrastructures, waste,
urban and territorial planning.
• They are also the closest level to citizens and communities, and
thus they can act on several levers to implement sustainable
energy and CO2 reduction policies:
as a consumer and manager of their properties and assets (selfgoverning)
o as planners and regulators (governing by authority)
o as providers and suppliers (governing by provision)
o as enablers and advisors (governing by enabling), raising awareness of
stakeholders
(Alber and Kern, 2008).
o
European cities committed to
energy and climate targets
Source: JRC (2013),
European cities committed to
energy and climate targets
Source: JRC (2013),
Multi-Level governance for
energy and climate policies
• A key hypothesis investigated in literature is that promoting
collaboration between government levels can increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of energy and climate policies
and enhance their implementation.
• This can be achieved combining their complementary skills,
competences and resources (IEA, 2009)
• To verify such hypothesis, there is need to investigate:
– in which ways levels of government are currently cooperating, through
which models and approaches;
– which approaches are proving to be successful and which factors are
causing success/weaknesses to the collaboration;
– which are the key enabling conditions of successful collaborations.
The European funded project COOPENERGY addresses these
questions.
COOPENERGY project
Multi-Level Governance in
Sustainable Energy Planning
• Co-Financed by the
Intelligent Energy
Europe programme
• Duration: 2013-2016
• Main objective: to
implement and
promote effective
cooperation models in
sustainable energy
planning between
regional and local
public authorities
Lead partner: Regional Council of Rhône-Alpes, 12
Partners, 9 EU Countries
Data
Initiatives by country
• A EU-28 survey has been
conducted within the
COOPENERGY project,
through the diffusion of a
questionnaire to about
380 organizations
(254 Regional/Provincial
authorities, 115 Energy
Agencies, 20 other
organizations)
• Data presented here are
from 109 responses
Number of initiatives
5
10
15
20
0
Sweden
France
Spain
Italy
United Kingdom
The Czech Republic
Germany
Ireland
Denmark
Poland
Greece
Estonia
Croatia
Austria
Romania
Portugal
Norway
Finland
Cyprus
Bulgaria
25
24
16
12
12
7
6
6
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
In which scopes are
Regional and Local Authorities
collaborating?
60
MLG cases per area of collaboration
55
40
50
20
24
0
n° of initiatives
50
Strategic energy planning
Modelling planning monitoring
Financial mechanism
Awareness raising
On which topics?
Topics of collaboration in questionnaire responses
18
17
17
16
16
16
15
14
12
10
10
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
In which areas?
100
Which areas are involved?
95
80
82
60
40
27
22
20
7
0
0
n° of initiatives
68
energy efficiency
renewable energy
GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction
climate adaptation
other energy supply
other
not answering
In which sectors?
Which sectors are involved?
80
88
70
60
40
44
20
37
13
1
0
n° of initiatives
63
Buildings
Local energy production
Transport and mobility
Industry and companies
Agriculture
other
not answering
Partners involved
100
Which entities were involved as partners
of the initiative other than your organisation?
94
60
65
40
47
35
26
20
22
14
0
0
n° of initiatives
80
83
Municipality or local public authorities
Regional or county public authorities
Energy Agency
Company
Universities and Research Organiz.
Environmental NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation)
National authority
other
not answering
Regional departments
involved
Other departments involved
30
40
20
23
15
16
13
10
10
10
6
6
0
n° of initiatives
40
43
Energy department
Environmental department
Territorial planning department
Sustainability department
Transport department
Agriculture department
General affairs
Water department
Waste department
other
Decisional level activating
the collaboration
At which level of the regional authority has the decision
been taken to activate the collaboration?
administrative
political
technical
not answering
11
3
30
65
on annual basis
1
1
1
2
* beyond staff working hours
1
50 00. < 1
0 0
1. 0.0 0 - 0. 0
00 00 5 0
5. 0. - 00 0
0 0 1 .0
10 00. 00 .00 00
. 0 00 - 5 0.
50 00 0 .0 00
. 0 .0 - 1 00 0
00 00 0. . 0
.0 - 00 00
00 50 0.
- 1 . 00 000
0 0
> 0.0 .00
10 00 0
0. . 0
no 000 00
bu .00
d 0
do ge
n' t *
tk
no
w
1
50 00. < 1
0 0
1. 0.0 0 - 0. 0
00 00 5 0
5. 0. - 00 0
0 0 1 .
10 00. 00 .00 000
. 0 00 - 5 0.
50 00 0 .0 00
. 0 .0 - 1 00 0
00 00 0. . 0
.0 - 00 00
00 50 0.
- 1 . 00 000
0 0
> 0.0 .00
10 00 0
0. . 0
0
no 000 0
bu .00
0
do dge
n' t *
tk
no
w
Frequency
Budget
What is the budget allocated to the initiative?
specify if the amount indicated is on total or annual basis
median value
on total basis
17
18
1
Euro
20
12
15
7
7
10
2
2
4
5
6
3
2
5
0
Funding sources
80
Who provides funding?
40
42
30
20
22
13
12
9
8
0
n° of initiatives
60
68
Regional (County) Public Authority involved
Local Public Authorities involved
National Government
Banks - Financial Institutions
Companies
International Organisations
Associations of Regional / Local Authorities
other
not answering
9
Typologies of results
and impacts
Which results and impacts were obtained?
80
85
76
60
40
55
35
20
33
14
0
n° of initiatives
64
energy savings / increase in energy efficiency
CO2 reduction
increase in citizens’ knowledge of sustainable energy
energy production from renewable sources
investments in sustainable energy infrastructure
job creation
not answering
Citizens’ involvement
Have citizens been involved?
No
Yes
If citizens have been involved,
they have been involved through:
40
not answering
39
20
49
20
17
12
10
9
3
0
59
n° of initiatives
30
1
public meetings
surveys
focus groups
competitions
online forums
other
Transferability and
replication
As far as you know, have other regions
replicated your initiative?
No
Yes
not answering
46
40
50
Did you draw inspiration from:
8
36
30
36
47
20
19
54
10
13
0
3
experiences of other Regions
none of the above, the initiative is original
European / International guidelines
national guidelines
other
not answering
Pooling of resources
Joint planning
30
1.9
0
m
in
an
t
9.7
24.5
29.4
20
Percent
im
nt
m
in
an
t
po
rta
nt
D
et
er
Ve
ry
30.4
20.6
25.7
20
13.9
17.8
Percent
mean value
D
et
er
40
nt
mean value
po
rta
nt
16.5
nt
13.7
Im
po
rta
30
im
20
im
po
rta
40
Ve
ry
30
so
mean value
Im
po
rta
35.9
nt
Regulation
im
po
rta
48.0
0
so
5.9
nt
at
al
l
0.9
N
ot
10
im
po
rta
25.2
nt
at
al
l
N
ot
m
in
an
t
35.3
im
po
rta
nt
nt
po
rta
nt
D
et
er
im
Im
po
rta
im
po
rta
50
N
ot
N
ot
35.9
m
in
an
t
Ve
ry
so
nt
at
al
l
14.7
D
et
er
po
rta
nt
nt
8.8
im
mean value
Ve
ry
nt
Political commitment
Im
po
rta
im
po
rta
2.9
N
ot
im
po
rta
20
so
nt
at
al
l
N
ot
m
in
an
t
42.1
N
ot
6.9
im
po
rta
nt
po
rta
nt
D
et
er
im
nt
mean value
N
ot
50
m
in
an
t
Ve
ry
Im
po
rta
im
po
rta
nt
at
al
l
30
D
et
er
po
rta
nt
nt
10
im
40
Ve
ry
nt
so
im
po
rta
N
ot
N
ot
Percent
40
Im
po
rta
im
po
rta
nt
at
al
l
0
so
im
po
rta
0
N
ot
N
ot
Percent
Enabling
conditions
Enabling
Conditions
50
50
39.6
40
10
50
mean value
33.3
10
Access to funds
30
11.2
20
3.0
10
0
Technical assistance
50
32.4
40
30
20
10.8
2.9
10
0
Which are the main success
factors of collaborative initiatives?
0
n. of times each factor appears in questionnaire responses
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
Political support, political commitment, political will
34
Partnership working, collaboration
34
Governance and process management
28
Involvement of stakeholders (local authorities, citizens, companies)
23
Funding availability and management of financial resources
22
Technical expertise (technical, legal, financial)
19
Exchange of experiences/information/good practices
16
Relevance and applicability of results
12
Involvement of Energy Agency
Participation / involvement of municipal staff
Other
6
5
14
40
Which are the main weakness
factors of collaborative initiatives?
0
n. of times each factor appears in questionnaire responses
10
15
20
25
30
5
Lack of funding / financial aspects
30
Lack of cooperation / difficulties in cooperation
12
Project timing (too short / too long)
10
Low involvement of stakeholders / difficulties involving stakeholders
10
Verification /monitoring / lack of information
10
different levels of committment from different partners
9
Lack of knowledge of the issues/mechanisms, lack of training, lack of experience
7
Low involvement of local authorities and/ or of internal staff
6
Low political commitment
5
Lack of human resources
6
Uncertainty of regulatory framework
5
Bureaucracy / administrative procedures
2
Too innovative
2
Goals not SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound)
2
Other
21
35
Conclusions
• A polycentric mult-scale climate governance framework is
developing in absence of a credible global agreement;
• Regional and local authorities worldwide are increasingly
engaged to contribute to climate mitigation;
• Cooperation between different levels of government can
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of policies;
• Strenghts and weaknesses characterize actual multilevel
cooperation models In Europe;
• Political commitment seems to be a major driver;
• Lack of funding is recognized by several regional and local
authorities as a major barrier.
Thank you
[email protected]