results of online consultation - home - deeds · reviewed by jeroen brouwer iker urdangarin meabe...

Results of online consultation D2.2

DEEDS – 736646 D2.2 – Results of online consultation

DEEDS

Dialogue on European Decarbonisation Pathways

GA No. 776646

Deliverable No. D2.2

Deliverable Title Results of online consultation

Dissemination level Public

Lead participant University of Geneva

Written by Georgios Xexakis, Evelina Trutnevyte 27.08.2019

Reviewed by Jeroen Brouwer

Iker Urdangarin Meabe

10.09.2019

21.09.2019

Acknowledgement WFC, EIT InnoEnergy, WBCSD, TNO

Status Final 23.09.2019

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 776646. The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the DEEDS project and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union.


Contents Summary and key results ................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Survey design ............................................................................................................................... 3 3 Dissemination .............................................................................................................................. 3 4 Sample ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Sample size ..................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Professional background of the respondents .................................................................. 4 4.2.1 Organisation type ........................................................................................................................ 4 4.2.2 Fields of experience .................................................................................................................... 5 4.2.3 Professional experience in EU countries ..................................................................................... 5

4.3 Previous Horizon 2020 funding ....................................................................................... 7

4.4 Previous knowledge of the HLP report ............................................................................ 8

5 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Overall R&I priorities ...................................................................................................... 8

5.1.1 Evaluation of the R&I priorities suggested in the HLP report ..................................................... 8 5.1.2 Input of the respondents on the overall R&I priorities ............................................................. 11

5.2 Transition Super-Labs ................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Evaluation of the Transition Super-Labs from the HLP report .................................................. 13 5.2.2 Suggestions for other Transition Super-Labs in the EU ............................................................. 13 5.2.3 Siting of Transition Super-Labs in the EU .................................................................................. 14

5.3 R&I priorities per sector ................................................................................................ 15 5.3.1 R&I priorities for the energy and power sector ........................................................................ 16 5.3.2 R&I priorities for the transportation sector .............................................................................. 19 5.3.3 R&I priorities for industry ......................................................................................................... 21 5.3.4 R&I priorities for agriculture and land use ................................................................................ 22 5.3.5 R&I priorities for cities .............................................................................................................. 24 5.3.6 R&I priorities for social innovation and behavioural/lifestyle changes .................................... 27 5.3.7 R&I priorities for economy and finance .................................................................................... 28

6 Conclusions and next steps ......................................................................................................... 30 7 Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 31


1

Summary and key results On November 2018, the High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways

Initiative published a report that outlined a Research and Innovation (R&I) strategy for a low-

carbon future in the EU, while growing the competitiveness of the EU economy1. In the

context of the DEEDS project, an online survey was developed to collect feedback on the

report’s key messages from experts, businesses and stakeholders of the EU decarbonisation.

The survey ran from March to June 2019, reaching a final sample of N=189. This report

presents the results of this survey.

Most of the survey respondents worked in academic or research organisations and were

experienced in the energy and power sectors. Country-wise, most respondents gained

professional experience in Germany, UK, France, and Italy. More than a third of the

respondents received Horizon 2020 funding in the past, suggesting that they had experience

with European R&I programmes. Around half of the respondents heard about the HLP report,

but less than 15% read it before answering the survey.

The majority of the respondents supported almost all of the overall R&I priorities for all

decarbonisation sectors proposed in the HLP report. The share of the respondents that

agreed or strongly agreed with the HLP priorities varied between 45% and 83% and for most

priorities was above 70%. The respondents were less supportive of prioritising R&I activities

related to Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and public-private

partnerships. Most recurrently, the respondents raised concerns about the feasibility of the

overall HLP strategy and commented that the aspect of international cooperation was lacking

in the HLP report. The respondents suggested repeatedly that more integrated and system-

level R&I strategies are needed, and that higher priority should be given to R&I actions for

electrification, behaviour change measures to reduce consumption, and the actions that

promote public communication about the transition.

The majority of the respondents were also supportive of all Super-Labs ideas from the HLP

report (60%-77% agree/strongly agree). Respondents suggested additional themes for Super-

Labs, as in related to the transport and tourism industry, agricultural areas with low

productivity, and areas with low deployment of renewable energy and with carbon intensive

industries. Respondents also suggested that Super-Labs could be located in left-behind areas

of Europe (e.g. islands, "brownfields", rural areas) and could be deployed at a more local scale

(e.g. neighbourhood labs). Country-wise, most respondents suggested that Super-Labs would

be ideally located in Germany, France, Poland, Spain, and the UK.

In terms of the specific R&I priorities per sector, most respondents chose to give feedback for

the energy and power sector (n=57), followed by industry (n=30), and transportation (n=22).

As with the overall R&I priorities, the majority of respondents were supportive of almost all

sector-specific R&I priorities of the HLP report. Additionally, the majority of the respondents

agreed that most of the HLP R&I priorities could contribute to the competitiveness of the EU

economy, that they can deliver high emission cuts, and that they are more or less likely to be

delivered by their suggested end-dates. The R&I actions with the highest support among the

respondents were related to the power sector, urban zero-carbon mobility, circular economy

in industry and agriculture, smart cities, and cross-country and cross-sectoral partnerships. In

1 European Commission Final Report of the High-Level Panel of the European Decarbonisation

Pathways Initiative. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/final-report-high-

level-panel-european-decarbonisation-pathways-initiative_en (accessed on 27 August 2019).

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/final-report-high-level-panel-european-decarbonisation-pathways-initiative_en




2

contrast, the R&I actions with the lowest support were related to BECCS, digitalisation for the

energy sector, and public-private partnerships.

The results of this survey can inform subsequent activities planned in the DEEDS project.

Specifically, stakeholder workshops (DEEDS Task 2.4 and 4.2) could confirm and further

explore the low support received by some priorities as well as the concerns and suggestions

of the survey respondents. Additionally, a summary of the survey respondents’ feedback

could be added in the policy briefs and business guide (Task 3.1 and 3.2), along with

indications on possible areas of conflict, based on the R&I actions that received low support in

the survey. Finally, future DEEDS activities could focus more on gathering feedback from

stakeholder groups with low survey participation, such as stakeholders from public

organisations and from the agricultural sector.


3

1 Introduction On November 2018, the High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways

Initiative published a report that outlined a Research and Innovation (R&I) strategy for a low-

carbon future in the EU, while growing the competitiveness of the EU economy2. The DEEDS

project’s Work Package 2 (WP2) aimed to engage a broader stakeholder community around

this HLP’s report in order to test, validate, and enrich it. In the context of WP2, an online

survey was prepared to raise awareness on the HLP report and to collect stakeholder

feedback to the report’s key messages. This document describes the development,

dissemination, and the results of this online survey.

2 Survey design The online survey was developed from October 2018 to mid-March 2019. The survey’s

transcript is provided in the Appendix. In brief, the survey included questions on the

professional background of the respondents, a short introduction to the HLP report,

questions to validate the key messages of the report, and open-ended questions to gather

comments and suggestions of the respondents. The questions referred to the overall R&I

recommendations of the HLP report and to specific R&I recommendations for each of the

seven sectors discussed in the report: energy, transportation, industry, agriculture and land

use, cities, social innovation, and economy. Survey respondents were asked to fill all the

questions on the overall recommendations and then to select one sector for further detailed

feedback. At the end of the survey, the respondents had the opportunity to give feedback to

other sectors. The respondents could skip questions.

Before launching the survey, a draft version was shared in March 2019 with the full DEEDS

consortium in order to pre-test it. Specifically, DEEDS colleagues were asked to go through

the survey and provide feedback on whether the questions were relevant to the goals of the

survey, the time needed to fill the survey, and whether questions conformed the General

Data Protection Regulation of the EU. The survey was launched on the 19th March 2019 and

was publicly available until the 30th June 2019.

3 Dissemination The goal of the survey was to collect a wider range of opinions on the HLP report from

experts, businesses, and other stakeholders of the EU decarbonisation. The full list of

dissemination channels used and the estimated recipients that were targeted is given in Table

A1 in the Appendix. First, the survey was disseminated by sending email invitations to the

expert database developed in DEEDS deliverable D1.1 and to the current stakeholder

network that is being developed in DEEDS Task 2.1. Second, the survey link was shared

through mailing lists, Twitter, and LinkedIn of the DEEDS consortium and its partner

organisations (e.g. University College London, EIT Innoenergy, WBCSD business members).

Third, the survey was also advertised on the mailing lists of organisations, such as the Climate

Action Network, the World Economic Forum expert network, and the Euractiv network.








4

Fourth, in order to increase the number of respondents, an access panel was set by the

company Respondi in the four most populous countries of the EU, i.e. Germany, France, UK,

and Italy. The panel was designed to include respondents that worked in the sectors that are

relevant to the ones from the HLP report and were reportedly knowledgeable and interested

to give feedback for decarbonisation R&I. The access panel’s 75 respondents received a small

financial compensation for the time spent. In total, 1676 individuals clicked on the survey link.

4 Sample

4.1 Sample size From the 1676 individuals that clicked on the survey link, 189 completed the background

questions and answered at least one question on the HLP report. Therefore, the valid sample

for the survey is N=189. Since the respondents could skip questions, the number of answers

varied for each question. Overall, n=174 completed the “Overall R&I priorities” section and

n=152 fully completed the survey.

4.2 Professional background of the respondents

4.2.1 Organisation type

As shown in Figure 1, more than 40% of the respondents worked in an academic or research

organisation, followed by 24% in business or industry, 18% in a non-governmental

organisation, and only 8% in a public organisation. Based on this, the survey sample may

overrepresent the views from experts and underrepresent the views from policymakers. Ten

respondents reported that they work in other types of organisations, such as think tanks or

business cooperatives.

Figure 1. Organisations of the respondents


5

Less than 20% of the respondents answered the survey on behalf of an organisation. This

share was relatively higher in business and non-governmental organisations than for the rest.

Among the respondents that worked in business, most of them worked in technology,

construction and material, and chemical sectors (Figure A1 in the Appendix).

4.2.2 Fields of experience

More than 50% of the respondents were experienced in the energy and power sectors,

followed by the fields of social innovation, transportation, economy and industry at around

20% share of the respondents each (Figure 2). On the contrary, the sector of agriculture and

land use was underrepresented in our sample (~10% of respondents). Respondents could

choose more than one field. For each field, the majority of respondents worked in academia

or research institutes, with the exception of the economy and industry fields, where most

respondents worked in business or industry. Twenty-six respondents reported that they are

mostly experienced in other sectors, such as education, policy and politics.

Figure 2. Respondents’ fields of experience. The respondents could select several fields of experience.

4.2.3 Professional experience in EU countries

Most respondents were professionally familiar with Germany (around 50%), followed by UK,

France and Italy (Figure 3). Overall, all 28 EU member states were represented in the survey

by at least a few respondents each (Figure 4). Additionally, more than half of the respondents

were professionally familiar with non-EU countries, mostly in Europe and North America

(Figure 5). Respondents could choose more than one country or continent.


6

Figure 3. Map of professional experience of respondents for each EU country

Figure 4. Number of the respondents with professional experience for each EU country


7

Figure 5. Number of the respondents with professional experience in non-EU countries

4.3 Previous Horizon 2020 funding More than a third of the total respondents received Horizon 2020 funding in the past (Figure

6), which suggests that they have experience with European R&I programmes. This share is

higher for the respondents working in academia or research organisations and much smaller

for the respondents working in public organisations.

Figure 6. Respondents that received Horizon 2020 funding in the past


8

4.4 Previous knowledge of the HLP report Around 50% of the respondents heard about the HLP report at the time of the survey, but

less than 15% read it before answering the survey’s questions (Figure 7). The share of the

respondents that heard about the HLP report was slightly higher for respondents working in

business and industry and in non-governmental organisations.

Figure 7. Knowledge of the HLP report among the respondents

5 Results 5.1 Overall R&I priorities

5.1.1 Evaluation of the R&I priorities suggested in the HLP report

The majority of the respondents supported all of the overall R&I priorities that apply across

sectors suggested in the HLP report (Figures 8-12). The share of the respondents that agreed

or strongly agreed with the priorities varied between 45% and 83% and for most priorities

was above 70%. The share of unsure respondents varied between 9% and 37%, while the

share of the respondents that disagreed or strongly disagreed varied between 3% and 18%.

These results indicate that only few respondents had strong reservations about most

priorities.


9

Figure 8. Evaluation of the first overall R&I priority for the short-term horizon (2025) from the HLP report. The first line

corresponds to the overall priority (in bold) and the following lines correspond to R&I actions related to this priority.

Figure 9. Evaluation of the second overall R&I priority for the short-term horizon (2025) from the HLP report. The first

line corresponds to the overall priority (in bold) and the following lines correspond to R&I actions related to this priority.


10

Figure 10. Evaluation of the overall R&I priority for the medium-term horizon (2035) from the HLP report. The first line


Figure 11. Evaluation of the first overall R&I priority for the long-term horizon (2050) from the HLP report. The first line



11

Figure 12. Evaluation of the second overall R&I priority for the long-term horizon (2050) from the HLP report. The first line corresponds to the overall priority (in bold) and the following lines correspond to R&I actions related to this priority.

The highest support was reported for the following priorities:

1. Short term: Tackle the barriers hindering the large-scale deployment of all existing

economically convenient low- or zero-carbon solutions (83% agree/strongly agree);

2. Medium-term: Mission on climate-neutral, ’circular’ and liveable cities (81%);

3. Long-term: Address the challenging areas of decarbonisation (79%).

The lowest support was reported for the following priorities:

1. Long-term: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) (45%);

2. Short-term: Public-private partnerships (61%);

3. Medium-term: Mission on European soils as carbon sinks (62%).

The last results indicate that respondents were rather sceptical prioritising R&I activities that

included BECCS and public-private partnerships.

5.1.2 Input of the respondents on the overall R&I priorities

In total, 53 respondents gave valid input to the overall R&I priorities by answering the open

question “Do you have any comments or suggestions for the overall R&I strategy? Do you

have any R&I actions for decarbonisation already planned in your organisation?”. For the

analysis, the inputs were first read in order to identify the comments, suggestions or planned

actions, which were then coded with a short, relevant description. Second, these codes were

grouped in broad thematic categories. Third, these categories were iteratively refined by

merging or rewriting. The final categories are presented in the paragraphs below.

From the total of 53 answers, 18 contained comments for the overall R&I strategy of HLP.

These comments have been grouped in the following themes:

• Concerns about the overall strategy: Four respondents had concerns about the

feasibility of the overall HLP R&I strategy. Other comments referred to the concerns

that these missions were not specific, that some R&I actions were conflicting to each

other, and that long-term R&I actions should be more urgent.

• Omissions from the overall strategy: Three respondents commented that the aspect

of international cooperation was lacking from the overall HLP strategy. Other

respondents commented that the overall priorities neglected nuclear power,


12

behavioural and lifestyle change actions, and an explicit reference to the EU carbon

budget. • Positive feedback: Some respondents found that the overall HLP strategy adequately

addressed the urgency of decarbonisation and was informative, consistent, and

forward-looking.

From the total of 53 answers, 29 contained suggestions for the overall R&I strategy of the EU

decarbonisation other than the ones mentioned in the HLP report. These suggestions were

grouped in the following themes:

• Suggestions for the overall transition: Four respondents were in favour of more

integrated and system-level R&I strategies, while two respondents mentioned each of

the following suggestions: prioritising R&I that can scale fast, using sociotechnical

approaches, focusing on a manageable transition and not on disruption, and reusing

infrastructure. • Promote international cooperation: Individual suggestions included prioritizing

international technological cooperation, understanding geopolitical challenges and

resource access, and promoting intra-EU cooperation and standardisation. • Prioritise or avoid specific technologies: Three respondents suggested that R&I

actions for electrification of non-power sectors should be prioritised, while others

were in favour of focusing on fuel and domestic heating decarbonisation, and avoiding

investing in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Utilisation as well as fossil fuels in

general. • Society-related suggestions: Four respondents suggested to improve public

communication for the decarbonisation and two respondents mentioned each of the

following suggestions: increasing the social justice of policies and promoting social

engagement. • Demand-related suggestions: Three respondents suggested including behaviour

change measures to reduce consumption, while others suggested to promote local

buying, reducing transportation needs (e.g. by promoting remote working and buying

local), and limiting air-travel. • Economy-related suggestions: Two respondents suggested developing financial

mechanisms and designing cost-effective solutions and focusing on market tools.

Others suggested to promote measures related to co-benefits, incentives and

revenue-neutral carbon tax policies.

From the total of 53 answers, 9 answers contained planned or existing R&I actions for

decarbonisation in respondents’ organisations. These actions were grouped in the following

themes:

• Society- and demand-related: Planned or existing actions relating to social

engagement, community energy projects, energy and resource efficiency, and value

chain decarbonisation.

• Knowledge-related: Planned or existing actions relating to scenario development,

understanding the impact of livestock in rural development, and opening a designated

decarbonisation department in a respondent’s organisation.

• Technology-related: Planned or existing actions relating to smart-grids, storage, CCS,

and bio-based plastic materials.


13

5.2 Transition Super-Labs

5.2.1 Evaluation of the Transition Super-Labs from the HLP

report

In the HLP report, the ‘Transition Super-Labs’ are flagship demonstrators at large territorial

scale where research, business, public administration and civil society co-produce integrated

decarbonisation solutions3. The HLP proposes to establish a small number of ‘Transition

Super-Labs’ in critical areas where the decarbonisation can be particularly difficult. The

majority of the respondents supported all Transition Super-Lab ideas suggested in the HLP

report (Figure 13). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed varied

between 60% and 77%. The highest support was for the Transition Super-Labs in energy-

intensive industrial territories, while the lowest support was for the Transition Super-Labs in

mining-industrial complexes.

Figure 13. Evaluation of the Transition Super-Labs proposed in the HLP report

5.2.2 Suggestions for other Transition Super-Labs in the EU

In total, 33 respondents gave valid input related to the suggestions for other Transition Super-

Labs in the EU. These suggestions were grouped in the following themes:

• General suggestions for Transition Super-Labs: Two respondents suggested to use

local transition labs (e.g. at a neighbourhood scale), while another respondent was

critical about the effectiveness of labs and suggested to invest instead in more proven

measures.








14

• Left-behind areas: Four respondents suggested to site Transition Super-Labs in left-

behind areas, including islands, “brownfield” sites (where labs could be used to

repurpose old industrial units and convert old jobs to new), and rural areas (in order to

counter the rural area-city divide and brain drain). • Transport-related: Five respondents suggested Transition Super-Labs related to the

transport industry (e.g. developing multi-functional zero-emission transfer hubs for

cargo and passengers), while four respondents prioritised Super-Labs in the tourism

industry (e.g. in hotel resorts).

• Agriculture-related: Four respondents suggested Transition Super-Labs that would

aim to increase forest cover in cities or in agricultural areas with low productivity.

Three respondents suggested labs to limit carbon-intensive agriculture and livestock. • Energy-related: Three respondents suggested to create energy communities in areas

with low diffusion of renewable energy systems, e.g. in Poland. • Industry-related: Three respondents suggested Transition Super-Labs in carbon

intensive industries (e.g. “hydrogen valleys” in order to convert oil to hydrogen

industry), while another respondent suggested to use these labs to promote circular

economy in areas with both housing and industry.

5.2.3 Siting of Transition Super-Labs in the EU

The majority of the respondents suggested that Transition Super-Labs should be ideally

located in Germany (more than 50%) followed by France, Poland, Spain, and UK (Figures

14,15). Respondents could choose more than one country. These results show some

resemblance with the country background of respondents as visualized in Figure 3.

Figure 14. Map of the suggested locations for the Transition Super-Labs


15

Figure 15. Responses about the suggested EU country for locating Transition Super-Labs

5.3 R&I priorities per sector As shown in Figure 16, the majority of the respondents gave feedback for the HLP R&I

priorities in the energy and power sector (57 respondents, 33% of the sample), followed by

industry (30, 17%), and transportation and mobility (22, 12%). The rest of the sectors were

selected by less than 20 respondents each. For each sector, most respondents worked in

academia or research organisations, with the exception of industry, where the majority

worked in business or industry.

Figure 16. Number of respondents per HLP sector in the survey


16

5.3.1 R&I priorities for the energy and power sector

The majority of the respondents supported all HLP R&I priorities in the energy and power

sector (Figures 17-20). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with the

HLP priorities varied between 48% and 95% and for most priorities was above 75%. Support

was higher for R&I actions related to the power sector and for its synergies with other

sectors. The same actions and synergies were evaluated by most respondents as effective in

reducing emissions, while actions in the power sector were assumed to lead to high

competitiveness for the EU economy. Most respondents believed that all actions were more

or less likely in their given timeframe. The action with the lowest likelihood was “Enable a full-

scale demonstration of carbon-neutral/carbon-negative liquid and gaseous fuels” (44%

likely/very likely).

Figure 17. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for the whole energy system


17

Figure 18. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for the power system

Figure 19. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for providing knowledge for the energy system transformation


18

Figure 20. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between R&I on energy sector and other sectors

The lowest support was reported for the following R&I priorities:

• Enable a full-scale demonstration of carbon-neutral/carbon-negative liquid and gaseous

fuels (48% agree/strongly agree);

• Promote full digitalization to completely enable smart prosumer-based energy system

(56%);

• Accomplish mission “the Internet of Electricity” on power system integration (64%).

These results indicate that respondents were less willing to prioritize R&I activities related to

carbon-neutral fuels (including hydrogen and synthetic fuels), digitalisation in the energy

sector, and knowledge-related actions overall.

Nine respondents gave additional open comments for R&I priorities on energy sector. These

comments were grouped in two themes:

• Not enough context: Respondents commented that the effectiveness of the priorities

depends on their context and that more information is needed for it. For example, one

respondent commented that the effectiveness of BECCS depends on feedstocks and

another that the EU carbon budget is an important context for all priorities. • Disagreement with measures or their end-dates: Individual comments included

statements such as that digitalisation and behavioural measures are not yielding speed

or market acceptance, that energy efficiency and demand reduction should be more

prevalent in the energy roadmap, and that the end-dates are overconfident.


19

Eight respondents gave suggestions for R&I priorities on energy sector. These suggestions

were grouped in these themes:

• System-level measures: The respondents suggested to create a “watchdog board” to

monitor decarbonisation progress in the EU, to provide local governments with more

information for decarbonisation, and to take more concrete measures using a system-

level approach. • Social- and demand-related: The respondents suggested to increase social awareness

of the decarbonisation challenges, to promote sustainable consumption, to involve

citizens through citizen ownership of energy production, to address energy poverty,

and to disincentivize air travel.

• Focus on specific technologies: One respondent suggested to focus on current

technologies that can provide high emission cuts (e.g. renewable energy systems and

system-level electrification), while another respondent suggested to focus more on

nuclear power.

5.3.2 R&I priorities for the transportation sector

The majority of the respondents supported all HLP R&I priorities for the transportation sector

(Figures 21-23). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with these

priorities varied between 55% and 85% and for most priorities was above 70%. The highest

agreement rate was reported for the action “Enable integrated urban zero-carbon mobility”

(85% agree/strongly agree).

Figure 21. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for transport technology development and system integration


20

Figure 22. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for new mobility demand patterns

Figure 23. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between R&I on transportation sector and other sectors

The lowest agreement rates were found for the actions related to behavioural measures and

lifestyle changes:

• Develop effective lifestyle programs and new approaches to reduce the carbon

footprint of EU citizens (55% agree/strongly agree);

• Investigate behavioural and demand side measures (65%).

Although most respondents rated the action “2045: Enable the switch from air to train and

other zero-carbon medium-distance means of transport” as one the most efficient actions in

reducing emissions (75% believed it leads to high/very high emission cuts), they also

evaluated it as the one that is less likely to happen (20% believed it is likely/very likely).


21

Six respondents gave additional open comments for the R&I priorities on the transportation

sector. Respondents commented that the changes need to happen urgently due to the long-

life assets of this sector, that technological measures are overemphasized in the roadmap in

comparison with behavioural measures, that electro-mobility power sources should be

ensured to be sustainable, and that the roadmap should focus only on zero-emission

technologies.

Four respondents gave suggestions for the R&I priorities on the transportation sector.

Respondents suggested to improve cross-country train service, to focus on electro-fuels from

renewable energy sources, and to prioritise battery and hydrogen for shipping. Respondents

also suggested that legislation is key to enforce transition in shipping and aviation and that

R&I actions should ensure a smooth transition and not a disruption.

5.3.3 R&I priorities for industry

The majority of the respondents supported all HLP R&I priorities for the transportation sector


priorities varied between 58% and 77%. The highest support and effectiveness in reducing

emissions were reported for the action “2032: Promote the embedding of industrial processes

in the circular economy” (77% agree/strongly agree, 81% believe it leads to high/very high

emission cuts). In contrast, the lowest support and effectiveness were reported for the action

“2026: Establish public-private partnerships with industries” (58%, 50%). The action with the

lowest likelihood to implement on time was considered to be the “2022: Enable the deep

electrification of industrial processes” (46% believed it is likely/very likely).

Figure 24. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for industry for the short-term horizon (2022-2026)


22

Figure 25. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for industry for the medium- and long-term horizon (2032-2040)

Figure 26. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between the R&I on industry and other sectors

Four respondents gave additional open comments for the R&I priorities for industry.

Respondents commented that the implementation would be difficult, that the presented R&I

priorities neglected distributional effects, financing and the social dimension, and that the R&I

measures should avoid grouping synthetic fossil fuels with BECCS.

Three respondents gave comments for the R&I priorities for industry. Respondents suggested

that the demand and supply instruments should complement each other, that more measures

were needed to overcome incumbent energy industries (oil and nuclear), and to prioritise

consumer behaviour measures and industrial retrofit with existing efficient technology.

5.3.4 R&I priorities for agriculture and land use

The majority of the respondents supported all HLP R&I priorities for agriculture and land use


priorities varied between 59% and 100% and for most priorities was above 75%. The R&I

action with the highest support and assumed effectiveness in reducing emissions was the

“2040: Develop new symbiotic society approaches for more sustainable food production and


23

consumption behaviour” (100% agree/strongly agree, 71% believed that it leads to high/very

high emission cuts). The R&I action with the lowest support was the “2035: Accomplish

mission on European soils as carbon sinks” (59% agree/strongly agree).

Figure 27. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for the agricultural sector (2020-2035)

Figure 28. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for the agricultural sector (2035-2040)


24

Figure 29. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between R&I on agriculture and other sectors

Three respondents gave comments for the R&I priorities for agriculture and land use.

Respondents suggested that the finance should come from public organisations and that R&I

actions for this sector should focus on agroforestry, using waste and residues for bioenergy,

overcoming behavioural barriers, and reducing the environmental impact of agriculture

overall.

5.3.5 R&I priorities for cities

The majority of the respondents supported all HLP R&I priorities for cities (Figures 30-34).

The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with these priorities varied

between 53% and 94% and for most priorities was above 65%. The R&I action with the

highest support was “2030: Develop ICT-driven innovative smart city concepts” (94%

agree/strongly agree), although its effectiveness to reduce emissions was judged as one of the

lowest among the respondents (only 38% believed it is high/very high). The R&I action with

the lowest support was the synergy “Investigate behavioural and demand-side measures for

mobility” (53% agree/strongly agree). In contrast, the R&I action “2030: Test and adopt

actions to nudge citizens towards zero-carbon urban lifestyles”, which is also related to citizen

engagement, was highly supported (81% agree/strongly agree). In general, actions that

involved mapping of the best practices and instruments were assumed to have the lowest

effectiveness to reduce emissions but were well supported by the respondents. All actions

were assumed to be more or less likely to happen in their timeframe, even the bolder actions,

such as the “2035: Arrive at the first truly decarbonised city in the world”.


25

Figure 30. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for technologies, smart cities, and the circular economy

Figure 31. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for governance of cities


26

Figure 32. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for citizen engagement

Figure 33. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for the transition from low- to zero-carbon cities


27

Figure 34. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between R&I for cities and other sectors

Two respondents gave additional open comments for the R&I priorities for cities. The

respondents suggested to avoid spending time for mapping and disseminating best practices

and to focus more on the implementation of existing solutions and on zero-carbon

renovations.

5.3.6 R&I priorities for social innovation and behavioural/lifestyle

changes

The majority of the respondents strongly supported all R&I priorities for social innovation and

behavioural/lifestyle changes (Figure 35). The share of the respondents that agreed or

strongly agreed with these priorities varied between 67% and 89%. The R&I action with the

highest support, the highest assumed effectiveness on cutting emissions and the likelihood to

be implemented on time was the “2030: Replicate and upscale social innovation strategies”

(89% agree/disagree, 61% believe it leads to high/very high emission cuts and 56% believe it

is likely/very likely).


28

Figure 35. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for social innovation and behavioural and lifestyle changes

Three respondents that gave additional open comments for the R&I priorities on social

innovation and behavioural/lifestyle changes commented that the R&I actions should be more

policy-oriented and not concentrated only in cities. Three respondents that gave comments for the R&I priorities on social innovation and

behavioural/lifestyle changes suggested to promote zero-carbon villages, understand social

triggers for prioritizing climate action, and to use social triggers in policy.

5.3.7 R&I priorities for economy and finance

The majority of the respondents strongly support all R&I priorities for economy and finance

(Figure 36-37). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with these

priorities varied between 55% and 80%. The R&I actions with the highest support were

“2030: Design strategies to address key barriers hindering decarbonisation” and “2040:

Promote partnerships to support decarbonisation (e.g. promote partnerships within the EU

and internationally, create cross-sectoral partnerships, generate interdisciplinary knowledge

and expertise)” (80% agree/strongly agree). The lowest support was found for both synergies,

i.e. “Establish public-private partnerships with industries on reducing process-based GHG

emissions and developing zero-carbon materials” and “Reinforce science in support of the

Paris Agreement” (55% agree/strongly agree).


29

Figure 36. Evaluation of the HLP R&I priorities for economy and finance

Figure 37. Evaluation of the HLP synergies between R&I for economy/finance and other sectors

Two respondents that gave open suggestions for the R&I priorities on economy and finance

suggested to focus more on creating incentives for the energy transition and to explore

synergies between demand instruments (e.g. carbon tax) and supply instruments.


30

6 Conclusions and next steps Overall, the majority of the respondents supported almost all of the R&I priorities and the

ideas for the Super-Labs proposed in the HLP report. The R&I actions with the highest

support among the respondents were related to power sector decarbonisation, urban zero-

carbon mobility, circular economy in industry and agriculture, smart cities, and cross-country

and cross-sectoral partnerships. In contrast, the R&I actions with the lowest support were

related to BECCS, digitalisation for the energy sector, and public-private partnerships. Most

recurrently, the respondents raised concerns about the feasibility of the overall HLP strategy

and commented that the aspect of international cooperation was lacking in the HLP report.

The respondents suggested repeatedly that more integrated and system-level R&I strategies

are needed, and that higher priority should be given to R&I actions for electrification,

behaviour change measures to reduce consumption, and the actions that promote public

communication about the transition. In terms of Super-Labs, respondents suggested

additional themes related to the transport and tourism industry, agricultural areas with low

productivity, and areas with low deployment of renewable energy and with carbon intensive

industries. Respondents also suggested that Super-Labs could be located in left-behind areas

of Europe (e.g. islands, “brownfields”, rural areas) and could be deployed at a more local scale

(e.g. neighbourhood labs).

Due to the sample size and uneven sectoral and spatial representation of the stakeholders,

the survey findings should not be interpreted as a consensus view of all the relevant

European stakeholders. However, the survey provides valuable insights that can be further

used in the subsequent activities planned in the DEEDS project. Specifically, stakeholder

workshops (DEEDS Task 2.4 and 4.2) could confirm and further explore the low support

received by some priorities (e.g. for energy sector digitalisation and public-private

partnerships) and the concerns and suggestions of the survey respondents (e.g. on the missing

aspect of international cooperation). The final conference of DEEDS (Task 5.5) could be also

used to investigate priorities that received low support, as it is planned to present project

results in an interactive format and collect further feedback from the participants. Stakeholder

workshops on Super-Labs (Task 4.2) could be used to evaluate the suggestions of the survey

respondents, such as using Super-Labs in the transport and tourism industry. Additionally, a

summary of the survey respondents’ feedback could be added in the policy briefs and

business guide (Task 3.1 and 3.2), along with indications of possible areas of conflict, based on

the R&I actions that received low support in the survey. Finally, forthcoming stakeholder

workshops and other DEEDS activities could focus more on gathering feedback from the

stakeholder groups with low survey participation, such as stakeholders from public

organisations and from the agricultural sector.


31

7 Appendix

Table A1. Survey dissemination details

DEEDS partner that sent survey

invitations To whom they were sent When they were sent

Estimated number of recipients

WFC DEEDS WP1 expert database 21.03.19 95

WFC DEEDS LinkedIn/Twitter/Website 01.04.19 2875

WFC DEEDS consortium partners

communication department 01.04.19 13

WFC DEEDS Support network 01.04.19 13

UCL UCL Twitter 03.04.19 8069

WFC CAN Europe/ CAN International mailing

lists 04.04.19 > 3000

WFC DEEDS mailing list 04.04.19 67

WFC WFC Twitter/LinkedIn 05.04.19 9355

WFC DEEDS WP2 stakeholder database 16.04.19 30

WFC DEEDS Social Innovation workshop -

follow-up 16.04.19 21

WFC Advertisement on Euractiv Energy &

Environment Newsletter 16.04.19 12000

WFC CAN EU budget mailing list 16.04.19 > 3000

WFC CAN Comms mailing list 16.04.19 > 3000

WFC CAN RE mailing list 16.04.19 > 3000

WFC CAN UNFCCC mailing list 16.04.19 > 3000

UNIGE World Economic Forum’s Expert

Network 18.04.19 4991

WFC

LinkedIn group

(https://www.linkedin.com/groups/225

1906/)

23.04.19 20512

WFC

LinkedIn group


6769/)

23.04.19 1442

WFC

LinkedIn group


1775/)

23.04.19 198683

WFC

LinkedIn group


4339/)

23.04.19 58589

EIT InnoEnergy EIT InnoEnergy's stakeholder network +

EIT InnoEnergy's employees 23.04.19 16000

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2251906/









32

FEEM FEEM Twitter 02.05.19 2750

FEEM FEEM Facebook 02.05.19 3000

UNIGE Energy and Social Science Network –

mailing list 06.05.19 unknown

WFC DEEDS Twitter 12.05.19 343

WFC Respondi – access panel 15.05.19 75

UNIGE Strommarkttreffen group - mailing list 15.05.19 unknown

KTH KTH - mailing list 21.05.19 unknown

WFC Rescoop network 06.19 4

WFC CAN Europe 06.19 unknown

WFC

DEEDS Energy Workshop -

communication with invitees who

declined participation at workshop

06.19 15


WFC DEEDS LinkedIn 05.06.19 42

WFC DEEDS Energy Workshop 17.06.19 35

WBCSD Targeted mailing on relevant WBCSD

members 21.06.19 50


Figure A1. Economic sectors of the respondents that work in business or industry

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

11 Introduction Introduction

IntroductionIntroduction

What should be the Research and Innovation (R&I) strategy in order to achieve a low-carbon future in the EU, while growing the competitivenessof the EU economy? The High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative has recently published a report that outlinessuch R&I strategy as input for shaping the funding programme Horizon Europe (2021-2027).

In this survey, we ask for your feedback on the key messages of the HLP report and the proposed R&I strategy. Your input will contributeto providing multi-stakeholder recommendations to the European Commission.

This survey has been developed by the project DEEDS ("DialoguE on European Decarbonisation Strategies"). The project has received fundingfrom the Horizon 2020 programme of the EU under grant agreement 642242.

The sole responsibility for the content of this survey lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.

Structure of this survey

The survey should take about 15-20 minutes and includes these parts:

1. Background questions;2. Overview of the HLP report;3. Detailed R&I suggestions per sector;4. HLP report in the context of global climate change mitigation;5. Final remarks.

Participation consent

Your survey responses will be anonymized and treated confidentially. Our privacy and cookie policy is described on the DEEDS website. Yourconsent to participate in the survey will be considered as an agreement to this privacy and cookie policy.

You always have the option to revoke your consent to participate in the survey. You also have the right to have your stored data deleted. In thesecases, please send us an email to [email protected].

22 Your professional background Your professional background

Your professional backgroundYour professional background

In what capacity are you completing this survey?

Which of the following best describes your organisation?

Please select only one.

Which of the following fields are you most experienced in?

Please select all that apply.

mailto:[email protected]

Which countries are you professionally familiar with?


For other countries, please select their respective continents.

Have you ever received funding from a Horizon 2020 programme?

Did you already know about the report of the High-Level Panel of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative?

33 FilterFilter Industry sector Industry sector

v_10Organisation?

Which of the following best describes your organisation? - Organisation? (From page 2: Your professionalbackground) equal 7

3.13.1 Industry type Industry type

Which economic sector are you active in (as an individual or as an organisation)?

Please select only one.

44 Overview of the HLP report Overview of the HLP report

Overview of the High-Level Panel reportOverview of the High-Level Panel reportThe High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative was an expert group composed of nine members fromresearch, industry, business and public sector. Commissioner Moedas tasked the HLP with advising the European Commission on the R&I strategythat will support the long-term decarbonisation of the EU economy in a way that is compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The HLP was active from 2016 to 2018 and was supported by the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and the DEEDS consortium. Itpublished its final report and recommendations in November 2018.

Front page of the HLP report

Call for a climate neutral Europe by 2050(Source: European Commission press release IP/18/6543)

The HLP report in brief

The R&I strategy, recommended by the HLP, is based on the following principles:

give priority to zero-carbon solutions that have the potential to be developed and deployed within the 2050 timeframe;develop portfolios of zero-carbon technologies, promoting diversification and reducing the risk of too early and risky choices;emphasise system-level innovation so that the individual elements of decarbonisation fit together in a coherent whole;focus R&I investments in the high added-value segments of the value chains.

To implement this strategy the following R&I instruments are proposed:

sustained R&I actions on decarbonisation across all sectors;large mission-oriented programmes to address complex decarbonisation challenges that cannot be solved by independent R&I developments;partnerships with industry to address the most difficult aspects of decarbonisation, where industry alone would not invest enough or with thenecessary urgency;‘Transition Super-Labs’, i.e. very-large-territory initiatives of real-life management of the transition from fossil fuel-based economies to zero-carbon ones.

55 R&I priorities - Short term R&I priorities - Short term

Overall R&I priorities for decarbonisation (1/4)

The HLP report proposed several priorities for the R&I strategy that apply to all sectors for the short-, medium- and long-term horizon.

To what extent do you agree with these priorities for the short-term horizon (2025)?

Stronglydisagree Disagree Neither agree or

disagree Agree Strongly agree

Short-term priority 1: Tackle

the barriers hindering the

large-scale deployment of all

existing economically

convenient low- or zero-

carbon solutions.

(a) Barriers to system integration

(b) Existing infrastructures that lock-in

high-carbon technologies and

behaviours

(c) Costs of the transition

(d) Socio-cultural, behavioural and

acceptance barriers

(e) Lack of finance and limited market

access

(f) Institutional, governance and

political barriers



Short-term priority 2: Make

policy and financial

instruments available to help

boost close-to-market low- or

zero-carbon solutions to

commercial level.

(a) Public-private partnerships

(b) Financial instruments to mobilise

investment

(c) Market design

– Regulation and policy

instruments

– Cross-scale coordination of

multiple instruments

66 R&I priorities - Medium term R&I priorities - Medium term


To what extent do you agree with these priorities for the medium-term horizon (2035)?



Medium-term priority: Design

mission-oriented actions that

have the goal of developing

key zero-carbon solutions.

(a) Mission on power system

integration (including smart storage,

smart grids, demand response,

digitalisation, new market designs

etc.)

(b) Mission on European soils as

carbon sinks (including intensification

of agricultural and forestry systems,

afforestation/reforestation, bioenergy

with carbon capture storage,

enhancement of soil carbon content

etc.)

(c) Mission on climate-neutral,

’circular’ and liveable cities (including

energy, mobility, waste, construction,

urban planning, social innovation etc.)

77 R&I priorities - Long term R&I priorities - Long term


To what extent do you agree with these priorities for the long-term horizon (2050)?



Long-term priority 1: Address

the challenging areas of

decarbonisation.

(a) Steel industry (process-based

emissions)

(b) Cement industry (process-based

emissions)

(c) Chemical industry (process-based

emissions)

(d) Air transport

(e) Shipping

(f) Livestock farming



Long-term priority 2: Develop

negative emissions measures

without crowding out other

R&I priorities.

(a) Bioenergy with Carbon Capture

and Storage

(b) Carbon sequestration in terrestrial

sinks (e.g. afforestation and

reforestation)

88 Suggestions R&I overall Suggestions R&I overall


Do you have any comments or suggestions for the overall R&I strategy? Do you have any R&I actions for decarbonization already planned inyour organization?

99 Transition Super-Labs Transition Super-Labs

Transition-Super Labs

In the HLP report, the ‘Transition Super-Labs’ are flagship demonstrators at large territorial scale where research, business, publicadministration and civil society co-produce integrated decarbonisation solutions. The HLP proposes to establish a small number of ‘TransitionSuper-Labs’ in critical areas where the transition can be particularly difficult.

To what extent do you agree that these areas are prioritized as potential ‘Transition Super-Labs’?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neither agree ordisagree

Agree Strongly agree

Other candidate areas?

Where in the EU could these ‘Transition Super-Labs’ be ideally located?


1010 Choose sector Choose sector

For which sector, described in the HLP report, would you like to give feedback?

Please select one sector. In the end of the survey you will have an opportunity to give feedback for more sectors.

1111 FilterFilter Explore R&I energy Explore R&I energy

v_185 First sector? For which sector, described in the HLP report, would you like to give feedback?

- First sector? (From page 10: Choose sector)

equal 1

and c_0001 energy completed? User-defined variable - energy completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

11.111.1 R&I energy roadmap intro R&I energy roadmap intro

R&I strategy for a fully decarbonised energy system in 2050R&I strategy for a fully decarbonised energy system in 2050The HLP report calls for an R&I strategy that integrates the low-carbon power markets and low-carbon heat, liquid and gas markets. The foreseenR&I priorities are given in the following roadmap.

Please study the R&I roadmap of the HLP below and then click to continue in order to give your feedback on each R&I priority.

Source: HLP report

11.211.2 R&I energy priorities (1/3) R&I energy priorities (1/3)

Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (1/3)

Whole energy system

How high can bethe emission cutsdelivered by this

action?

Do you agree toprioritise this action?

Do you agree that thisaction contributes to

the competitiveness ofthe EU economy?

How likely is it thatthis action issuccessfully

implemented by thesuggested end-

date?

Very highHighModerateLowVery lowDon't know

Strongly agreeAgreeNeither agree or disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagreeDon't know


Very likelyLikelyAbout as likely as notUnlikelyVery unlikelyDon't know











Power system


action?






date?



Providing knowledge for the energy system transformation


action?






date?











Strongly agreeAgreeNeither agree or disagreeDisagreeStrongly disagreeDon’t know

Very likelyLikelyAbout as likely as notUnlikelyVery unlikelyDon’t know













11.511.5 R&I synergies energy R&I synergies energy

Synergies between R&I on energy/power and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions on the energy and power system are interrelatedwith other sectors and R&I fields.

Please give your view to some of the synergies that were highlighted in the HLP report.

How high canbe the emissioncuts delivered

by thesuccessful

implementationof this synergy?

Do you agree toprioritise the R&I

actions that addressthis synergy?

11.611.6 R&I energy suggestions R&I energy suggestions

Your input on R&I for decarbonised energy/power sector

The HLP R&I strategy for a decarbonised energy/power sector in 2050 is again illustrated below.

Do you have any comments or suggestions?





















Source: HLP report

1212 FilterFilter Explore R&I transportation Explore R&I transportation



equal 2

and c_0002 transport completed? User-defined variable - transport completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

12.112.1 R&I transportation roadmap R&I transportation roadmap

R&I strategy for a decarbonised transport sector in 2050 R&I strategy for a decarbonised transport sector in 2050

The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy in four main domains:

1. society, consumers and new mobility demand patterns;2. transport technology;3. integration of the transport system with the energy system and other sectors;4. policy measures to enable the commercialisation of low-carbon transport structures.

Please study the roadmap and then click to continue in order to give your feedback on each R&I priority.

Source: HLP report

12.212.2 R&I transportation priorities (1/3) R&I transportation priorities (1/3)


Transport technology development and system integration


action?






date?

12.312.3 R&I transportation priorities (2/3) R&I transportation priorities (2/3)


New mobility demand patterns


action?






date?













12.412.4 R&I synergies transportation R&I synergies transportation

Synergies between R&I on transportation/mobility and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions on the transport sector are interrelated with othersectors and R&I fields.



by thesuccessful




















12.512.5 R&I transportation suggestions R&I transportation suggestions

Your input on R&I for decarbonised transport sector

The HLP R&I strategy for a decarbonised transport sector in 2050 is again illustrated below.


Source: HLP report

1313 FilterFilter Explore R&I industry Explore R&I industry



equal 3

and c_0003 industry completed? User-defined variable - industry completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

13.113.1 R&I industry roadmap R&I industry roadmap

R&I strategy for a decarbonised industry in 2050 R&I strategy for a decarbonised industry in 2050

The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy with four key pillars:

1. energy efficiency and material savings;2. deep electrification;3. embedding industrial processes in the circular economy;4. innovation in zero-carbon breakthroughs for process-based emissions industries.




Source: HLP report

13.213.2 R&I industry priorities (1/2) R&I industry priorities (1/2)



action?






date?

13.313.3 R&I industry priorities (2/2) R&I industry priorities (2/2)


How high can bethe emission cuts
















delivered by thisaction?



date?

13.413.4 R&I synergies industry R&I synergies industry

Synergies between R&I on industry and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions on the industry are interrelated with other sectorsand R&I fields.



by thesuccessful




13.513.5 R&I industry suggestions R&I industry suggestions

Your input on R&I for decarbonised industry















The HLP R&I strategy for a decarbonised industry in 2050 is again illustrated below.


Source: HLP report

1414 FilterFilter Explore R&I agriculture Explore R&I agriculture



equal 4

and c_0004 agriculture completed? User-defined variable - agriculture completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

14.114.1 R&I agriculture roadmap R&I agriculture roadmap

R&I strategy for decarbonised agriculture, land use and bioeconomy in 2050R&I strategy for decarbonised agriculture, land use and bioeconomy in 2050

For the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sectors (collectively known as AFOLU), the HLP report calls for a R&I strategy with three mainareas:

1. transformative technologies and practices to decarbonize agricultural and forestry systems, fostering multi-disciplinary approaches to food,feed, bioproducts and soil regeneration;

2. new regenerative measures to optimize land use and improve soil quality;3. new policy measures and socio-economic models based on the symbiotic society approach.


Source: HLP report

14.214.2 R&I agriculture priorities (1/2) R&I agriculture priorities (1/2)



action?






date?













14.314.3 R&I agriculture priorities (2/2) R&I agriculture priorities (2/2)



action?






date?

14.414.4 R&I synergies agriculture R&I synergies agriculture

Synergies between R&I for the AFOLU sector and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions for the AFOLU sector are interrelated with othersectors and R&I fields.



by thesuccessful
















14.514.5 R&I agriculture suggestions R&I agriculture suggestions

Your input on R&I for decarbonised and circular AFOLU sector

The HLP R&I strategy for the AFOLU sector in 2050 is again illustrated below.


Source: HLP report

1515 FilterFilter Explore R&I cities Explore R&I cities



equal 5

and c_0005 cities completed? User-defined variable - cities completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

15.115.1 R&I cities roadmap R&I cities roadmap







R&I strategy for enhancing the role of cities in the EU decarbonisation R&I strategy for enhancing the role of cities in the EU decarbonisation

The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy with four main areas:

1. circular or “semi-circular” economy in cities;2. governance for decarbonisation in cities;3. citizen engagement in the decarbonisation;4. transition of cities to integrated zero-carbon systems.

All R&I actions for cities are designed as constituents of a broad mission-oriented action for 2035, called "Mission on climate-neutral, ‘circular’ andliveable cities".


Source: HLP report

15.215.2 R&I cities priorities (1/4) R&I cities priorities (1/4)


Technologies, smart cities and the circular economy


action?






date?



Governance of cities


action?






date?



Citizen engagement

How high can bethe emission cuts



How likely is it thatthis action is

































delivered by thisaction?


successfullyimplemented by the

suggested end-date?



Transition from low- to zero-carbon cities


action?






date?

15.615.6 R&I synergies cities R&I synergies cities

Synergies between R&I for cities and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions for cities are interrelated with other sectors and R&Ifields.



by thesuccessful




























15.715.7 R&I cities suggestions R&I cities suggestions

Your input on R&I for cities

The HLP R&I strategy for cities is again illustrated below.








Source: HLP report

1616 FilterFilter Explore R&I social innovation Explore R&I social innovation



equal 6

and c_0006 social completed? User-defined variable - social completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

16.116.1 R&I social innovation roadmap R&I social innovation roadmap

R&I strategy on social innovation and lifestyles for decarbonisationR&I strategy on social innovation and lifestyles for decarbonisation

The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy with three main areas:

1. strategies for behavioural and lifestyle change to reduce CO emissions;2. policies to support social innovation for decarbonisation;3. monitoring and evaluation of the impacts from social innovations and lifestyle change.

This R&I strategy complements a broad mission-oriented R&I action for cities and for 2035, called "Mission on climate-neutral, ‘circular’ andliveable cities".


Source: HLP report

16.216.2 R&I social innovation priorities (1/2) R&I social innovation priorities (1/2)


Behavioural and lifestyle changes

2


action?






date?

16.316.3 R&I social innovation priorities (2/2) R&I social innovation priorities (2/2)


Social innovation


action?






date?

16.416.4 R&I social innovation suggestions R&I social innovation suggestions

Your input on R&I for social innovation and lifestyles for decarbonisation

The HLP R&I strategy for social innovation and lifestyles is again illustrated below.


















Source: HLP report

1717 FilterFilter Explore R&I economy Explore R&I economy



equal 7

and c_0007 economy completed? User-defined variable - economy completed? (From page : System) unequal 1

17.117.1 R&I economy roadmap intro R&I economy roadmap intro

R&I strategy for addressing the economic implications of the decarbonisationR&I strategy for addressing the economic implications of the decarbonisation

The HLP report calls for R&I to address four cross-sectoral macro-economic issues:

1. the macro-economic implications of decarbonisation and the conditions to ensure that decarbonisation is not a burden but a benefit from aninnovation-driven low-carbon transition;

2. the need to mobilise significant financing capital to support decarbonisation, which requires a deep restructuring of the financing system;3. the international trade dynamics and implications arising from decarbonisation;4. the necessity to promote innovative and low-carbon business models to ensure that decarbonisation fully materialises.


Source: HLP report

17.217.2 R&I economy priorities (1/3) R&I economy priorities (1/3)

Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities


action?






date?

17.317.3 R&I synergies economy R&I synergies economy

Synergies between R&I on economy/finance and other R&I

The HLP report emphasizes system-level innovation. Many of the recommended R&I actions on economy and finance are interrelated with othersectors and R&I fields.



by thesuccessful


















17.417.4 R&I economy suggestions R&I economy suggestions

Your input on R&I for economy and finance

The HLP R&I strategy for economy and finance is again illustrated below.


Source: HLP report

1818 FilterFilter Show demographics only once Show demographics only once

v_410 Next sector? - Next sector? (From page : Thank you) less 1

18.118.1 FilterFilter Scenario part Scenario part

v_2 I consent to participate in this survey. - I consent to participate in this survey. (From page 1: Introduction) unequal 0

18.1.118.1.1 Intro Intro

The HLP report in the context of global climate change mitigation (1/3)The HLP report in the context of global climate change mitigation (1/3)Thank you for your feedback on the HLP report. Now we would like to know your opinion of the HLP R&I priorities in the context of global climatechange mitigation pathways assessed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.



results of online consultation - home - deeds · reviewed by jeroen brouwer iker urdangarin meabe...

Documents