date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:46:53 +0100
from: Alex Haxeltine <Alex.Haxeltine@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Progress on contacting EU Stakeholders for ADAM
to: "Alex Haxeltine" <Alex.Haxeltine@uea.ac.uk>, <a.jordan@uea.ac.uk>, <alexander.wokaun@psi.ch>, <bayer@iiasa.ac.at>, <Detlef.van.Vuuren@rivm.nl>, <f.berkhout@sussex.ac.uk>, <frank.biermann@ivm.falw.vu.nl>, <frank.raes@jrc.it>, <gunnar.eskeland@cicero.uio.no>, <h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk>, <j.Kohler@econ.cam.ac.uk>, <j.Rotmans@icis.unimaas.nl>, <jdtabara@terra.es>, <jochem@cepe.mavt.ethz.ch>, <karen.obrien@cicero.uio.no>, <lennart.olsson@miclu.lu.se>, <Marcel.Berk@rivm.nl>, <marco.bindi@unifi.it>, <N.Adger@uea.ac.uk>, <Ottmar.Edenhofer@pik-potsdam.de>, <P.Martens@icis.unimaas.nl>, <pal.prestrud@cicero.uio.no>, <Pavel.Kabat@wur.nl>, <Richard.Klein@pik-potsdam.de>, <saskia.werners@wur.nl>, <Terry.Barker@econ.cam.ac.uk>, <tom.downing@sei.se>, <Tom.Kram@rivm.nl>, <zbyszek@pik-potsdam.de>, <zkundze@man.poznan.pl>, barreto Leonardo <leonardo.barreto@psi.ch>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>

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

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

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

Heres a few points that emerged:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


