Magazine

Magazine on climateand sustainability

In this issue

vol. 23, no. 2 • July 2017 ISSN: 1877-606X

In this issue

1Integrating Circular Economy in theEducation System — Editor's note

2Green Deal Signed for NationalDutch Carbon MarketWytze van der Gaast

4Barriers to the Rapid Adoption ofSolar PanelsKrisztina Szendrei

7Building Blocks of Circular BusinessModelsJan Jonker, Ivo Kothman, Niels Faber

and Hans Stegeman

10Seminar on Climate Change andSustainable Development in ChileLuis Edwin Gonzales

12Global Research and InnovationCooperation in ClimateTechnologies: Opportunities andChallenges

142nd International Workshop onSustainabil ity and Resil ience ofBioenergy for Climate Change (Bali)Cynthia Juwita Ismail

15Energy Efficiency 'Good Practices' inIndustry

16Reports

18JIQ Meeting Planner

Integrating Circular Economy in theEducation System Editor's note

It has been a few years now that 'circular economy' started to emerge asa core policy topic, promoted among others by the EuropeanCommission, towards a more sustainable society. At the same time, it isoften unclear what is meant by it. In a recent study that JIN Climate andSustainabil ity coordinated, some of the interviewees linked a circulareconomy to waste management, while others referred to energyefficiency measures. Very few interviewed stakeholders described circulareconomy as a societal concept, focussed on efficient processes andrecycling, reuse and useful util isation of resources after being processed,l imiting waste to a minimum.

A core element of the conceptual development of circular economy iseducation, which starts at primary school (first awareness building),continues during next educational stages (acquiring a circular economytoolbox), after which the knowledge can be applied in the labour market,and updated with help of concepts such as lifelong learning.

The study mentioned above (at the request of the Province of Fryslân)aimed at a stocktaking of the embedding of the circular economy ineducation (from primary schools to universities) in the northernNetherlands. While more and more initiatives are undertaken, theseremain limited to ad hoc projects that very much depend on theenthusiasm of individual teachers. The circular economy is generally notpart of any basic curriculum. Neither do schools set good examples asthey, in their buildings and waste management, hardly apply circularprocesses themselves.

The conclusions of the stocktaking are: (1) teachers and students haveinsufficient awareness of circular economy, which makes it difficult tofurther the transition in the education system; (2) within regions,teachers and schools insufficiently collaborate so that good and badpractice is hardly exchanged; and (3) information that is alreadyavailable – such as available teaching materials, inspiring guest lecturers,and supporting services – is difficult to find.

The final report of the inventory, titled in Dutch 'Parels zonder ketting'("Pearls without a chain"; i.e. there are various good practices but anintegrated approach towards a circular society is lacking), wil l bepublished in September 2017. A more extensive article in English on theresults and recommendations wil l fol low in the next issue of JIQMagazine.

Wytze van der Gaast and Erwin Hofman

2JIQ Magazine • July 2017

By Wytze van der Gaast*

On 11 May of this year, Deputy Minister ofInfrastructure and Environment of theNetherlands, Mrs. Sharon Dijksma, signed the'Green Deal National Carbon Market'. With theagreement activities will be undertaken toestablish a market structure for certification ofgreenhouse gas emission reductions achievedvia projects in sectors which are not covered bythe EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). TheGreen Deal has been co-signed by 16 privatesector organisations which are potential projectdevelopers, potential buyers of certificates orotherwise stakeholders in emission reductionactivities.

The main reason for the agreement was to supportemission reduction activities in non-ETS sectors in theNetherlands which up until now have not beenstimulated by policies, and for which it is unlikely thatsuch policies wil l be formulated at short notice.Signatory parties acknowledge that such projects,including the certification of the emission reductions,

Green Deal Signed for National Dutch Carbon Market

were already possible via voluntary carbon markets,where project developers could sell carbon certificatesto parties who voluntarily commit themselves toreducing their cl imate footprint. However, it was feltthat certificates in the market vary in terms of qualitywith different treatment of baselines, additionality ofemission reductions and double counting or doubleclaiming of these.

Transparency in voluntary carbon marketIn order to create transparency in the Dutch voluntarycarbon market and observe quality levels of tradedemission reduction certificates, the Green Deal hasbeen agreed. A Green Deal is a Dutch public-privatecollaboration where government and private sectorentities collaborate on creating enabling environmentsfor green economy transitions. Under the Green DealNational Carbon Market, four key activities wil l becarried out, which are organised in working groups.

In Working Group 1, Green Deal parties collectmethodologies for calculating emission reductions for

* Wytze van der Gaast (wytze@jin.ngo) is a senior researcher at JIN Climate and Sustainabil ity, Groningen,Netherlands. He has facil itated the preparation of the Green Deal for a national carbon market, togetherwith Hans Warmenhoven and Jos Cozijnsen. In the implementation of the Green Deal, he is facil itator ofWorking Group 1 on methodologies for determining emission reductions.

Figure 1. Group photo after signing the Green Deal on the Dutch national carbon market, 11 May 2017. In the middle DeputyMinister Mrs. Sharon Dijksma of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.

3JIQ Magazine • July 2017

a range of project types. With these methodologies,which often already exist from the Kyoto Protocolmechanisms Joint Implementation and CleanDevelopment or from other carbon crediting initiativesin the voluntary markets, emission reductions can bedetermined which are real and additional to existingand planned policies. Where needed, existingmethodologies wil l be modified to adequately reflectthe Dutch contexts, where possible methodologies wil lbe simplified, e.g. with standardised procedures orbenchmark values. Identified and modifiedmethodologies wil l be considered by the Committee ofAdvisors and then established by a Green DealDecision Board.

In Working Group 2, for different project types, suchas land-use, transport, heat, and energy efficiency,portfolios wil l be prepared with projects that wil l usethe established greenhouse gas accountingmethodologies. Monitoring of the emission reductionswil l be done by project owners themselves after whichverification and certification wil l be done by externalparties, in order to have independent judgement ofthe emissions reduced. Under the Green Deal, partieswil l work on processes to streamline verification andcertification steps so that transaction costs can bekept low.

Supporting the certificate trading marketIn Working Group 3, parties wil l organise theregistration of the realised emission reductions byprojects in Working Group 2 by listing the certificates,including information about the project type, locationin the Netherlands and owner of the certificate. Sucha registry supports potential buyers in finding thecertificates that they are particularly interested in. Forexample, a company wil l ing to invest in emissionreduction certificates for reducing its carbon footprint,may have a particular interest in purchasing thesefrom a green project in the own region.

Working Group 4 wil l focus on supporting the marketstructure for trading the certificates. Possible topicsfor this Working Group are: how to label thecertificates given the robust accounting and registryprocedures established under the Green Deal, whatcould be a reasonable price for trading thecertificates, how to support the market place so thatinterest certificate buyers can efficiently search forcertificates generated from the projects they prefer inthe region that they prefer?

The signatory parties wil l col laborate under the GreenDeal for a period of three years. The objective of theparties is that by 2020, during its third year, theGreen Deal wil l result in certificates reflecting a totalof 0,5 MtCO2-eq. emission reductions in non-ETSsectors in the Netherlands.

Figure 2. Schematic overview of the organisation ofcollaboration on the Green Deal for a national non-ETScarbon market in the Netherlands.

Box 1. Rulebook for Green Deal projects.

Parties to the Green Deal jointly work on aRulebook for the accounting of greenhouse gas(GHG) emission reductions based on projects.These rules wil l be determined for:• Additionality of emission reductions: check

whether project activity is covered by ongoingor planned policy.

• Project system border: relevant GHG emissionsources for the project.

• Baseline: reference scenario for GHG emissionsin absence of a project during the project'scertification timeline.

• Project-based GHG emissions: actual GHGemissions within the project's system borderdue to the project activity.

• GHG emission reduction: difference betweenbaseline emissions and project emissions.

• Avoiding double counting, claiming: ensuringthat an emission reduction project under theGreen Deal does not lead to higher emissionselsewhere.

4JIQ Magazine • July 2017

By Krisztina Szendrei*

According to current predictions, theNetherlands is going to miss its renewableenergy target of 14% for 2020. Currently, onlyabout 6% of the energy is generated fromrenewable sources and according to an analysisby the European Commission (2017) this sharewill grow to 13% by 2020 at most, ifimplementation of renewable technologies isnot accelerated.1 For that, a range of optionscan be utilised. This article focuses on theoption to intensify the implementation of solarPV panels both on rooftops and on land.

In 2016, a policy package was prepared by the DutchMinistry of Economic Affairs with additional measuresfor reaching the 14%-target by 2020 (IntensiveringEnergieakkoord).2 While, technical ly, the options inthe package seem feasible, there could be severalbarriers (risks & uncertainties) to theirimplementation, such as costs, spatial planning issuesand public acceptance. Based upon extensiveliterature review and interviews with relevant publicand private stakeholders3 in the Netherlands we haveidentified a series of existing/potential risks anduncertainties for both rooftop and land-based solarsystems. This study has been undertaken within theframework of the EU-funded TRANSrisk project, which

* Krisztina Szendrei (krisztina@jin.ngo) is researcher at JIN Climate and Sustainabil ity, Groningen, Netherlands.1 European Commission, 2017. Renewable Energy Progress Report - Com(2017) 57 final, Brussels (pdf).2 Rijksoverheid, 2016. Kamerbrief Intensiveringspakket Energieakkoord (l ink).3 To date, ten stakeholders were interviewed. This article reflects the combined views of these stakeholders.

Barriers to the Rapid Adoption of Solar Panels

focuses on uncertainties and risks related to pursuinglow-emission transition pathways.

Implementation risks and uncertainties

Financial aspectsRooftop solar panel instal lations are supported by thenet-metering policy (in Dutch: salderingsregeling). Asa result, households and small businesses with solarPV panels on their rooftop do not pay energy tax, VATand the sustainable energy contribution levy over theself-generated and used electricity.

“While this policy has contributed to the diffusion ofrooftop solar panel instal lation in the Netherlands, thesuccess has a negative impact on the government’sfiscal revenues.”

For this reason, the government has raised thequestion whether net-metering is the most cost-effective option to stimulate the instal lation of rooftopsolar PVs. It was announced in 2014 that the policywil l be evaluated in 2017, which has created hesitanceto invest among citizens as they were uncertainwhether the current stimulation policy wil l continue toexist. In July 2017 the Ministry of Economic Affairsrevealed that the policy wil l continue unchanged til l

Figure 3. Renewableenergy share in theNetherlands since thefirst quarter of 2014.Source: EnTranCe,Hanze University ofApplied Sciences,Groningen, Netherlands

5JIQ Magazine • July 2017

2023 to provide investment security for consumers.After 2023, the policy would most probably wil l bereplaced by a subsidy.

“Another issue is that not all home owners havesufficient finances to instal l solar panels on theirrooftops.”

This is the case even with the support from theabove-mentioned fiscal stimulation policy and theconsiderably shortened payback periods (and theycannot be forced to do so). Moreover, a large portionof households and small businesses are located inrental apartment buildings.

“Here it is not always clear who should pay for thepurchase and instal lation of the solar panels and howto distribute the benefits (e.g. lower energy costs andfiscal exemptions).”

Is it the owner of the building envelope or the renterof the building, the one who pays for the electricity orsomeone else who intends to use the rooftop to instal lpanels for his/her own financial benefit? These oftenlegal complications discourage people and companiesto invest in solar panels.

With respect to large-scale solar PV stimulation, solarparks are not eligible for net-metering but stimulatedthrough the SDE+ feed-in programme (SDE+ is theextended subsidy programme for sustainable energyproduction). SDE+ is a tender scheme which firstgrants relatively cheap technologies, fol lowed by moreexpensive and/or less efficient ones. As solar energywas not among the cheapest options til l recently, veryfew projects were granted the subsidy. However,prospects for large-scale solar under SDE+ havebecome better. First, the costs of the technology havestrongly decreased which is expected to continue. Inaddition the SDE+ subsidy for co-firing wood-pelletsin power plants has reached its maximum, whichmeans more opportunities in 2017 for othertechnologies such as solar and wind.5

“However, even with SDE+ subsides, there is noguarantee that projects wil l actually be realised, asthere are other obstacles to clear.”

Of the projects that were granted SDE+ subsidy in thepast years, between one third and half were cancelled

or only partly realised, which means that hundreds ofmil l ions of Euros worth of subsidies were not util ised.4

The reason for this is often the poor preparation ofprojects, including poor planning, unexpected costs,but also lack of or insufficient proper agreements withthe municipality, land owners, contractors, and locals.At the same time, the case study analysis has shownthat banks have been rather reluctant to providefunding to solar park projects, even if project planswere realistic and well developed. As RVO (theNetherlands Enterprise Agency) has recentlyimplemented some important changes (includingdemanding a feasibil ity study for projects about500kW), it is expected that banks wil l be less hesitantto invest in large solar projects. Increased famil iaritywith solar parks may further support both projectdevelopers to improve that business planning andbanks to become less reluctant to offer loans.

Suitability of rooftops for solar PVWhile complying with Dutch renewable energy goalswould be strongly supported by having all rooftopsequipped with solar PV systems, not al l homes orbuildings are suitable for that.

“Not every roof is strong enough to bear the weight ofthe solar panels, nor is favourably oriented towardsthe sun.”

Other roofs require regular maintenance which wouldrequire regularly removing the solar panels.Therefore, only part of the roofs can be used forrooftop solar PV. Suitabil ity of rooftops can be

4 The Solar Future NL, 2017. "Significant amount of SDE+ subsidies remain unused due to poor preparation" (l ink).5 In fact, about 2.6 GW worth of solar PV projects were submitted in the first subsidy round of 2017 (source).

Figure 4. Instal lation of rooftop solar PV.

6JIQ Magazine • July 2017

increased by integrating solar panels on rooftopsand/or situate houses to make them more solar-friendly. Currently, there are no policies in theNetherlands to provide incentives to architects andbuilding companies to work on solar PV-suitablebuilding and dwell ing design.

Spatial planning and land use for solar parks“Since the Netherlands is a relatively small country,and most of the land has its designated purpose, notal l land might be suitable locations for solar parks.”

Each province develops its own policy about whereand how solar parks can be placed. For example, theprovince of Fryslân has a policy called 'Romte foarSinne'6 (English: 'space for solar') which acknowledgesthat solar energy is important but solar parks can onlybe instal led in the vicinity of cities/vil lages and not atopen land. For instance, this could lead to solar parkslocated near infrastructural systems (e.g. alongrailways, roads and highways, sound barriers, bikeroutes) and industrial development zones. As theselocations are more acceptable for the development oflarge-scale projects than agricultural and nature areasfrom the public` s point of view (see below), this couldaccelerate PV implementation.

Social perception and acceptanceFrom a psychological perspective, it appears thatpeople perceive renewables quite positively, however,general perception does not necessarily reflect onwhat people think about specific projects.

“Perception is strongly influenced by biosphericvalues. People with strong biospheric values are more

likely to support renewables even if it entails personalcosts.”

For rooftop solar panels the perception of the public isgenerally positive, apart from the occasional individualdifferences. Natural ly, there are always individualdifferences in how people perceive renewables (e.g.whether solar PVs look nice or not, whether wind mil lsare noisy or not). People with strong personal valuesand belief, e.g. find solar PVs expensive or they aresimply against renewable energy for some reason,might even try to use other arguments such as panelsare not pretty or they are actually not good for theenvironment to support their views. There might bepeople who oppose to rooftop panels due to financialor aesthetic reasons. In addition, there is stil l a lot ofmisconception about this technology (e.g. mostpeople are unaware that solar panels have becomeaffordable, it is a good investment and there arehardly any technical hurdles) which delays theadoption of this technology.

“For large-scale solar park projects, public acceptanceis more complex as these are integrated into existinglandscape and therefore might be considered ashorizon pollutants (similar to how people perceivewind parks).”

Public resistance is usually enhanced by lack offamil iarity with solar parks (as there are not manysolar parks yet in the Netherlands) which may lead tounrealistic arguments and ` wild` ideas. Learning fromdeployment of wind power parks (and dealing withthe ‘not in my back yard’ argument), an importantstep to increase acceptance is to involve local peopleand cooperatives in the development of large solarprojects from the beginning.

Figure 5. Rendering of a planned solar park of 28,500panels, with a nominal power of 7.8 MWp, near the vil lageof Marum in the Netherlands. Source: Solarfields.

Share your views with usWithin the framework of the TRANSrisk project wehave developed a survey to focus on the aspects ofpublic acceptance of renewable energy (primarilysolar energy) in the Netherlands: what are driversfor people to accept a technology or not, and whatmeasures can be taken to enhance acceptance?The survey (only in Dutch) is available via thefollowing link: www.jin.ngo/zon-enquete.

Co-funded by theEuropean Union

6 Gemeente Súdwest-Fryslân, 2016. Notitie "Ruimte voorde Zon".

7JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Building Blocks of Circular Business ModelsResults of national circular economy research in the Netherlands

By Jan Jonker, Ivo Kothman, Niels Faber and Hans Stegeman*

The issue of ‘circular economy’ is gainingtraction. However, a significant gap remainsbetween the concept and the business practice.For example: what does the circular economymean for the organisation of processes orbusiness models, or for the quality of recyclablematerials? In this article, the first results ofresearch on these issues are presented, alongwith an outline of the state of the circulareconomy in the Netherlands.

Based on a pilot research project on a regional level inOverijssel and Gelderland provinces, in the secondhalf of 2016, a national research project on the natureand building blocks of circular business models wascarried out. For the project, 900 questionnaires werecompleted, 39 in-depth interviews were held, andmore than 4,800 businesses were analysed. The highresponse rate to the questionnaire shows that there isa lot of interest in the topic of circular economy, andso do the many articles and books published on thetopic. Although this contributes to furthering theconcept of circular economy, it does not provideinformation on how business may struggle withembedding circular practices in their daily activities.

This research project provides insights in howbusinesses progress towards a circular organisation,and what the building blocks of business models for acircular economy are. The overall conclusion of theresearch project is that we are stil l in the very earlystages of organising the circular economy. Toparaphrase Aristotle: “One swallow does not make asummer,” but it is a very good sign.

What is the circular economy?The key characteristic of the circular economy is theclosing of material loops. To this end, products,components and materials are reused or recycled aslong as possible. The aim is to maintain the value ofresources to a maximum extent. This also brings new

* The research project has been carried out by Stichting Our Common Future 2.0 (OCF 2.0) in collaborationwith Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

business opportunities such as new ways ofcooperation, new markets, and innovation of productsand services.

‘Circular’ transcends recycling. In recycling, waste isconverted into new materials. In a circular businessmodel, the goal is to maximise value retention of rawmaterials and to minimise waste. The value chainbecomes a value cycle. This leads to shifts ofemployment in organising the various forms of cyclesthat are created. At the same time, it also changesthe core of the economy. Old business models basedon sell ing ‘stuff’ are converted to new businessmodels based on the provision of services andfunctionalities. This requires a new generation ofbusiness models and organisations.

Businesses are considered to be the main drivers ofthe circular economy. We have identified five ‘buildingblocks’ for business models for the circular economy.The five building blocks provide insight whether andto what extent companies are progressing towardssuch business models.

Building blocks for circular business modelsBusinesses attempt to break free from the dominantl inear economy, and explore how to organise theirbusiness in a circular way. An ideal circular businessmodel consists of a configuration of five buildingblocks that have developed coherently.

The results of theresearch project havebeen published (inDutch) in the booklet'Één zwaluw voorspeltveel goeds' (l ink).

8JIQ Magazine • July 2017

1) Closing the loopsThe core of the circular economy is (contributing to)closing the (material) loops in the production processand the life cycle of a product. This entails reuse ofresources, reduced use of raw materials and energy,and extending the lifespan of products by repairing,upcycling, or redesigning.

2) Value creationIn the circular economy value is created in multipleways. The challenge is to simultaneously realisefinancial, ecological, and social value, while closingmaterial loops.

3) StrategyThe circular economy requires a clear strategy aimedat the efficient use of resources, a shift from ‘product’to ‘service’, and collaboration on the closing of loops.

4) Organisation modelThe circular economy requires to collaborate withpartners in value chains and networks to close loops.This type of organisation is at odds with the classicvalue chain model in which companies mainly considertheir own business and compete with others.

5) Cost and revenue structureA circular organisation wil l lead to a changingstructure of costs and revenues. Costs and revenuesmay have to be shared among parties that areinvolved in a value cycle. New questions may arisewith regard to financing.

Building a circular economyThe analysis in the Netherlands shows that there is asmall group of leading businesses that alreadyimplement multiple building blocks simultaneously.Especial ly when it comes to ‘closing the loops’, thesebusinesses have taken a lead on a large group of‘fol lowers’. The group of followers mainly works onthe circular economy based on the principle ofrecycling and eco-efficiency. This means that existingproducts are being improved, and existing processesare being refined and organised more efficiently.

Looking at the building block of ‘closing the loops’,the main aspect is recycling. For many businesses itremains unclear that this can also be economical – infact, some businesses consider recycling as a costleading to losses.

With regard to ‘value creation’ there is a similarsituation. Most value is created in the form ofecological value, combined with reducing the use of

resources and energy. Given the nature of the circulareconomy (closing material loops), it is logical thatsocial value is less prominent. The creation of multiplevalues appears to reinforce each other. Notable is thatcreating ecological and social values is not l inked tomaking profit.

Concerning the building block ‘strategy’, the situationis less manifest. A truly circular strategy is notcommonplace. Although in the research the choice ofstrategy was an explicit question, the results showthat no clear ‘set’ of strategies is available yet.However, some case studies, which can be consideredprecursors, show emerging strategies leading towardsa circular business model.

Currently, the organisation of the circular economy ismainly implemented within businesses’ ownorganisations and with parties within their valuechains. The leading businesses collaborate moreintensively, encounter fewer challenges in theircircular activities, and indicate to a much lesser extentthan others that they lack the required knowledge. Astriking outcome of the research is that there is onlyl ittle collaboration with investors. This supports theassumption that (bank) financing of circular activitiesremains problematic.

With regard to expectations on revenues the resultsare indistinct. Compared to the ‘fol lowers’, the leadingbusinesses indicate they expect circular activities tosignificantly contribute to their revenues.

Figure 6. This radar chart can be used to indicate scoreson the five building blocks of circular business models.

9JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Circular state of the countryThe research project has clearly shown a number ofmotives for circular entrepreneurship:1. Creation of ecological and social value;2. Development of a sustainable business model;3. Opportunities to innovate in the value chain, also

related to process optimisation and value chainintegration.

These results are in l ine with the earl ier notion thatbusinesses get involved in circular activities forreasons of reducing the use of resources and eco-efficiency. The assumption that this wil lsimultaneously lead to social value creation cannot beconfirmed.

About a quarter of the respondents have beenworking on circular business models for more thanfive years. They can be characterised as the ‘circulareconomy die-hards’. For them, circular activities havebeen integrated into their business operations. Inaddition, there is a remarkably large number ofcompanies that recently embraced circular business,for example through experiments on a project basis. Abright future may lie ahead for the circular economy!

ChallengesThe following three issues are mentioned as the mainchallenges for realising a circular economy: (1)counterproductive regulations; (2) other parties in thevalue chain are not ready for the circular economy;and (3) a lack of funding.

These challenges show that the institutionalframework in many cases does not yet suit thecircular economy. The government in particular couldplay a leading role in setting up supportive policies,and start by introducing circularity into its ownpurchasing and procurement systems. Thegovernment could also create fiscal instruments, suchas taxing materials instead of taxing labour.

Accelerating the transitionA key lesson is that ‘the circular economy’ does notyet exist. For some businesses, the circular economyis a minor part of their business model, while forothers it is at the core of their value proposition.

Various actors in society, including companies, thegovernment, and consumers/citizens, wil l need to takesteps towards circularity. The research and the publicdebate show that it appears the consumer/citizen hasnot been assigned a role in the circular economy. Inmany value cycles the consumer would have to play akey role, but in practice this seems to be overlooked.This is reaffirmed by recent government policy in theform of seven solely business-oriented transitionagendas. This leaves consumers out of the transitiontowards the circular economy, which in turn leads tothe recurring argument that the consumer “does notask for it” which would acquit businesses from theobligation to initiate circular activities. In other words:this creates a cycle of the wrong kind.

The premise remains that (business) organisations arethe leading actors in the transition towards a circulareconomy. The research project shows many positiveexamples of this. However, the sobering reality is thatmany companies say that they are conducting circularbusiness, but on closer inspection – with regard to thefive building blocks – it turns out they are not. Despitea lively debate and some fine examples, themagnitude of the circular economy in the Netherlandsremains limited.

The transition towards a circular economy stil l is in itsinfancy and shaped by its forerunners, byentrepreneurs who dare to take risks and lead us to acircular economy.Figure 7. Stages of circular organisation among businesses

in the Netherlands (respondents in the survey).

10JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Seminar on Climate Change andSustainable Development in Chile

By Luis Edwin Gonzales*

On June 8th 2017, the Latin American Center forEconomic and Social Policies at the PontificalCatholic University of Chile (CLAPES UC) hosteda seminar on ‘Climate Change and SustainableDevelopment in Chile’. The seminar was wellattended by over 130 stakeholders includingpolicy makers, researchers, and market actorsfrom different sectors. The main aim of theseminar was to inform and discuss with theaudience ways in which climate changemitigation policies could be better harmonisedwith sustainable development objectives.During this seminar (preliminary) findings ofresearch were presented and discussed.Several presentations focused specifically onthe Chilean economy and context, while otherpresentations brought in findings andexperiences from abroad in different countriesand sectors.

Climate change is a worldwide reality and scientificfacts support this. For the last 45 years, global surfacetemperatures rose at an average rate of about 0.17°Cper decade — more than twice as fast as the increaseobserved per decade of 0.07°C for 1880-2015 (NOAA,2017). Chile has witnessed, particularly in recentyears, natural alterations such as droughts (that haveaffected the crop cycle and the energy sources), heatwaves (that were great determinants of atypical forestfires), and intense rains in areas of low rainfal l . Thesephenomena cannot go without relation to climatechange, and hence, must be studied in the scope ofsustainable development and faced with appropriatepublic policy responses — duly expected from a nationthat seeks progress with economic opportunities,justice and respect for the environment, such as Chile.

By organising this seminar CLAPES UC seeks tocontribute to the ongoing public debate on linkingclimate change mitigation actions and sustainabledevelopment, with empirical and comparativeevidence. In this occasion, we brought together the

* Luis Edwin Gonzales (luis.gonzales.carrasco@gmail.com) is Economist at the Latin American Center forEconomic and Social Policies at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (CLAPES UC), Santiago de Chile.

opinion and experience on this matter ofrepresentatives of the Ministry of Environment, withlocal and international academics in representation ofa few partners of the EU co-funded projectTRANSrisk.

Complementarity of climate change andother development policiesIn this seminar, we began by analysing Chile’sinstitutional framework and the current barriers thatimpede a more effective battle against cl imatechange. Ricardo Irarrázabal, former Deputy Secretaryof Environment, concluded that, under the currentinstitutional framework, not much complementarityexists in public policies related to local pollutants andglobal emissions. Moreover, a legal modification isrequired where prevention and adaptation plansshould be embraced, and an adequate control ofplans and their efficient implementation, enabled.

Air quality and associated local social andeconomic impactsCarmen Gloria Contreras, Chief of the StandardsDepartment of the Air Quality Division of the Ministryof the Environment, focused on the evidence on airquality and its social and economic impacts from theChilean government's perspective. She highlighted therelevant role of black carbon among local pollutants

Figure 8. The author presenting at the seminar.

11JIQ Magazine • July 2017

and as a determinant of global pollutants and climatechange. In the past years, the greatest reductions inpollution have been accomplished by the means ofstructural public policies especial ly concentrated onfuels and transport: policies aimed at the use of fuelslow in sulphur, introduction of emission norms thatpush for the entrance of better technologies,incentives for cleaner and more efficient vehicles,among other initiatives.

A carbon tax and the potential impact onhousehold income in ChileLuis Gonzales and Rodrigo Cerda from CLAPES UCanalysed the energy costs (measured as expenditureon electricity, natural gas, LPG, paraffin, kerosene,carbon, and firewood) for Chilean households andtheir potential states of vulnerabil ity to climate change(measured by simulating scenarios where the impactsof climate change policy such as the carbon tax wouldrepresent changes in people’s budgets). Theproportion of income that households spend onenergy varies by income level: the first income decilespends on average almost 10% of their income onenergy, and, on a national scale, energy expenditurerepresents approximately 5% of household income.While electricity is the main source of expenditure forall income levels, natural gas is a more significantdeterminant of energy expenditure in higher incomedeciles, and liquefied petroleum gas represents ahigher portion of energy expenditure for lower incomedeciles.

Low emission developments in ChinesecitiesTo provide comparative evidence on these issues,first, Jenny Lieu of the University of Sussex, presentedher study on risks and uncertainties of low carbonpolicies in cities, applied to Shanghai and Beijing.Being China's main metropolises and located indifferent climate zones, she posed ideas on how theycan potential ly opt for a low-carbon development.This presented particularly interesting results for Chilewhere, although urban population is already almost90% of total population, it is fundamental to look forways to improve adaptation to climate change andmitigation of pollutants in the main Chilean cities,where the main sources of pollution are transport andresidential sectors.

Co-effects of low-emission transitionpathways in the livestock sector in theNetherlandsWe then hosted Eise Spijker of JIN Climate andSustainabil ity and Annela Anger-Kraavi of Cambridge

Econometrics and the University of Cambridge (alsoVice-Chair of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body onScientific and Technological Advice SBSTA). Theirresearch team modelled and analysed the co-effectsof two different low-emission transition paths in thelivestock sector in the Netherlands. Preliminary resultsfrom their work suggest that opting for integratedmanure management wil l benefit the nationaleconomy while meeting the required reductions ingreenhouse gases and other atmospheric pollutantemissions. They also signalled the potential challengesfor l inking mitigation policy and sustainabledevelopment for Chile, where the livestock industryhas not (yet) intensified and industrial ised as in theNetherlands. Although the contribution of Chile’sl ivestock sector to national greenhouse gas emissionsis stil l modest, within agricultural emissions it is themost polluting subsector.

ConcludingThe topics and sectors covered in this seminar arepart of a wider array of themes that l inking climatechange mitigation and adaptation strategies andsustainable development entail . This seminar showedthat there is plentiful scope for policy makers andmarkets to find synergies between climate changemitigation actions and more local socio-economic andenvironmental development objectives. But theseminar also highlighted some risks, as there mightnot always be a perfect win-win strategy. The ParisAgreement, once more confirmed the urgency of thisdebate, but also stimulates a pro-active approachsignatory countries, policy makers and the marketactors to initiate real actions, With the recentannouncement of the United States to abandon theParis Agreement, the world has been reminded of theimportance of continued international and nationalcollaboration on Climate Change, and of the challengethis represents for humanity.

Felipe Larraín, Director of CLAPES UC, and member ofthe Council of Leaders for Sustainable Development ofthe United Nations, pointed out the need for globalcooperation to achieve growth with lower emissions,notwithstanding the difficulties this implies –includingtechnological barriers, or even the lack of cooperationfrom other parties.

With this seminar, we hope to have motivated andcontributed to the forecast of the future challenges ofour country Chile in terms of climate change andsustainable development.

12JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Global Research and Innovation Cooperation in ClimateTechnologies: Opportunities and Challenges

To keep global warming well below 2°C and reach anear-zero emission society, research and innovation(R&I) in cl imate-related fields, as well asdissemination of findings wil l be needed. Researchcan, for instance, focus on development anddemonstration of new technologies for mitigation.Innovation supports the processes of thesetechnologies entering the mainstream. Such researchand innovation can be supported internationalcollaboration on R&I, including between developedand developing countries, as this offers theopportunity for trust building, knowledge sharing andallows all parties to influence the decision-makingprocess of technology development. This isemphasised in the Paris Agreement (2015) which callsupon international collaboration between Parties ontechnology development and transfer at differentstages of the technology cycle (‘learning curve’).

The CARISMA project has analysed several existinginternational collaboration activities between the EUand emerging economies on R&I for development andtransfer of technologies for mitigation. These includeactivities initiated by governments, industries, andregions.

Mapping of R&I initiativesThere are many R&I initiatives based on collaborativeprogrammes involving organisations from multiplecountries around the world. However, as most ofthese initiatives take place independently withoutoverall coordination of the analytical approach andplanned outputs, there is a risk of duplication on sometopics while, on the other hand, there may be a lackof focus on other topics. In order to support policymakers with key information from these initiatives,CARISMA has mapped a wide set of international R&Icollaboration initiatives between governments,between industries, and between regions. From thislarge pool, about 30 initiatives were selected foranalysis in more detail, including identification ofaspects which complicate or facil itate internationalcollaboration on research and innovation.

Among the initiatives analysed are those based ongovernment collaboration. CARISMA has analysed tengovernment-to-government initiatives, such asthe Indonesian-Swedish Initiative for SustainableEnergy Solutions, which aims to promote knowledge

This article covers the work on international R&Icooperation by the CARISMA project. CARISMA isan EU-funded project (February 2015 - July 2018)aimed at supporting the development and diffusionof options for climate change mitigation.Information on the CARISMA project is available atthe project website via carisma-project.eu.

exchange and strategic energy planning via research,innovation, and pilot projects. Government-to-government initiatives are funded throughgovernment channels and usually have goals ofclimate change mitigation, adaptation, capacity-building and technology transfer. In practice, suchinitiatives are often government-led with involvementtoo of private sector entities. In sharing comparableclimate-related objectives, governments often havedifferent interpretations of what to gain fromcollaborative initiatives, which could range frompromotion of European exports to encouragingknowledge exchange and strategic energy planning.National government-to-government initiatives, unlesspurely academic, tend to promote domestictechnologies into new markets, a feature they do notshare with multilateral approaches.

CARISMA has analysed 11 industrial collaborationinitiatives on mitigation, including for example theLow-Carbon Technology Partnership Initiative. Next tocontributing to knowledge building on climate changemitigation, these initiatives often aim at increasingfirm reputation, creating new market opportunitiesand/or securing a leading position on a market.

Final ly, CARISMA analysed ten regionalcollaboration initiatives, between mostly the EU onone side and Brazil, China, India, or African countrieson the other side. Example of regional collaborationsinclude the B.BICE+ project on science andtechnology cooperation between the EU and Braziland the CAAST-Net Plus programme on science,technology and innovation cooperation between theEU and Sub-Saharan Africa.

13JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Based on the mapping and analysis of R&Icollaboration initiatives, CARISMA has identified threekey areas of recommendations which are discussedbelow.

1. Alignment of roles and objectivesThe main factor influencing the outcomes ofcollaborations is the interactions between actors. Thisincludes wil l ingness to collaborate, trust, andcommunication. An important factor for success in acollaboration is how careful parties’ roles and taskswithin the collaboration have been designed andagreed, in l ine with interests and competences. Thelatter is also important from the perspective ofunderstanding what actually drives the involvement ofactors in a collaboration initiative. While cl imatechange mitigation may often be the overarching goalof cl imate technology collaboration initiatives, it maywell be that individual actors have differentmotivations to participate. Such differences inmotivations are not necessarily bad, as long as theyare explicitly clear, and not counterproductive. It istherefore important that in the process of designing acollaboration project the different motivations ofpartners are clearly understood and aligned with theoverall project goal.

Therefore, in order to create an environment of trust,project managers should not only identify individualpartners’ drivers and motivations, but also set aframework to make these transparent and check andbalance them.

2. Monitoring and evaluation for impactIn order to analyse collaboration initiatives and ensuresuccessful outcomes and impacts, it is important tounderstand what ‘success’ means. Currently,monitoring and evaluation processes are focussedmainly on outputs achieved within the timeframe ofthe project. However, output (e.g. a technology actionplan) does not necessarily mean that the project hasan impact beyond the project (e.g. measurablereduction of GHG emissions because of deploymentand diffusion of the technology based on thetechnology action plan). It is therefore recommendedthat in the project design stage the link betweenoutput (during the project) and impact (beyond theproject) is clearly defined, and that there are tools inplace to measure both.

3. Standardisation and reportingA third issue identified from the analysis ofcollaboration initiatives is a lack of ‘institutionalmemory’, i.e. past collaboration projects are

insufficiently used for building new project initiatives.Enabling new initiatives to learn from past results alsoallows for better possibil ities to develop a follow-upand to create synergies with other initiatives.Especial ly for government-led initiatives, it isrecommended that a user-friendly tool is developed toregister initiatives in a common database. Thedatabase should be open and allow access toinformation for a large audience. It could includesearch options by type of collaboration, area ofresearch, technologies covered, geographical areas,outcomes, and documentation created. For such adatabase, there should be a standardisation ofdefinitions, requirements, and monitoring systems.Currently, mapping and analysing collaborationinitiatives is hampered because there is no commonterminology and there are no clear guidelines onproject design.

ConclusionsInternational R&I collaboration initiatives can help toincrease the productivity of research on technologydevelopment and foster innovation for technologytransfer, as it supports knowledge exchange andcreation. From the detailed analysis of initiative byCARISMA it can be concluded that motivations ofcollaboration partners can be diverse, despite acommon overall cl imate-focused objective. For theprivate sector, for example, motivations to enter intoa climate-focussed collaboration project are theopportunity to develop new products, createopportunities to enter new markets, or to influencepolitical agendas.

The key recommendations are to: ensuretransparency of participant roles and drivers in orderto build mutual trust; to strengthen the monitoringand evaluation systems of initiatives and focus notonly on project outputs but also on longer-termoutcomes and impacts; and to standardiseterminology and requirements in order to enable thedevelopment of a common database of initiatives,which would help to foster institutional memory. Thiscould also stimulate the prolonging of regionalcollaborations beyond individual projects.

Read more• Working Document 5: background report including

mapping of initiatives and analysis.• Policy Brief 7.1: How should international

institutions promote R&I collaboration?• Policy Brief 7.2: Government-led international R&I

collaboration in climate change mitigation: practicalguidance for policy-makers

14JIQ Magazine • July 2017

2nd International Workshop on Sustainability and Resilienceof Bioenergy for Climate Change (Bali, Indonesia)

By Cynthia Juwita Ismail*

The 2nd Bioenergy International Workshop washeld in Bali, Indonesia on 22nd – 24th May2017 as a continued event of 1st BioenergyInternational Workshop in 2016. This event is acollaboration between two EuropeanCommission co-funded projects: GREENWINand TRANSrisk engaging with local partners,Sustainability & Resilience Co, UdayanaUniversity and Indonesia Climate Change TrustFund (ICCTF).

The main goal of 2nd bioenergy workshop is to shedfurther l ight on the opportunities of biogas inIndonesia with critical reflections on the associatedrisks and barriers. This objective is based on thefindings of 1st Bioenergy Workshop. During the firstworkshop, the stakeholders from national to regencylevels were invited (particularly from Bali and EastJava) to explore potential feedstock and technology ofbioenergy. Based on the input from stakeholders, 4bioenergy options were selected: Rice residues forpellet, large scale biomass gasification, small scalebiogas and bioethanol. Then, a multi criteriaassessment was performed to evaluate all fouroptions against 5 dimensions, social, technology,economic, environmental and project interest andsynergies. As a result, small scale biogas was selected

as a priority technology. Small-scale biogas haspotential for rapid technology diffusion, while therealso is existing financial support. Moreover, it is in l inewith the development programme of Bali localgovernment. This finding thus led to main topic for2nd Bioenergy International Workshop: “Scaling thePotential of Biogas whilst Lifting Barriers”.

In accordance with the topic of the workshop, therisks and barriers of biogas deployment wereidentified through stakeholder consultation focusing inBali and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT). At the same time,other business opportunities l inked to biogasimplementation were also explored by the GREENWINteam together with the stakeholders. During thediscussion, participants shared interesting ideas, suchas fruit-jam production and sell ing packaged organicfertil izer. Final ly, an interactive discussion in differentgroups in an effort to formulate a strategic plan forenhancing biogas deployment was conducted at theend of the workshop. The group of policy makers,researchers/engineers and farmers successfullyidentified a set of strategies to foster biogas diffusion.As a follow-up, the findings of the second workshopwil l be used to shape scenarios to foster biogasdeployment in Indonesia and to be reported in thenext bioenergy workshop.

* Cynthia Juwita Ismail is junior researcher at Sustainabil ity & Resil ience Co. (su-re.co), Mengwi, Bali,Indonesia.

Figure 9. Stakeholder consultation: identifying risks andbarriers of biogas deployment.

Figure 10. Focus group of policy-makers: formulating astrategic plan for biogas diffusion in Indonesia.

15JIQ Magazine • July 2017

Energy Efficiency 'Good Practices' in Industry

In the EU-MERCI project, a 'Good Practice' (GP)is defined as "a technique or methodology that,through experience and research, has beenproven to reliably lead to a desired result with aminimum use of resources." GPs have beenselected from a database of about 3,000records describing energy efficiency measuresand projects put in place in EU Member States.

Proposed GPs shall satisfy the following criteria:• It is efficient;• It is technical ly feasible;• It is economically affordable;• It is replicable in different EU Member States;

In addition to applying these criteria, a statisticalanalysis of the database has been undertaken, inaddition to an engineering expert assessment and theuse of key performance indicators (KPIs) toobjectively quantify the benefits of the practice. TheKPIs take into account aspects such as energyperformances, environmental performances, andeconomic performances.

Example in the pulp and paper sectorAn example of a GP in the pulp and paper sector isthat of improved 'mechanical pulping grinding plateteeth'. The intervention consists of a new grindingplate with a teethed surface, with improved cuttingqualities thanks to a new geometry that al lows thepulp to be distributed on the sides of the grinder. Thereduction of electricity consumption is l inked to thereduction in the regrinding phenomenon, that is thepermanence of the pulp on the grinder surface. TheGP leads to an energy consumption improvement of20%. It is an example of a technical ly simple project,al lowing to obtain high primary energy savings, whileinvestment costs are relatively low and the paybacktime short (0.5 years).

Validation of GPs in the food industryWithin the food & beverage sector, a group ofEuropean food and drink federations (belonging toSPES GEIE) run a validation of the GPs identified inthe EU-MERCI project. The agrifood industry isstrategic al l over Europe, and offers wideopportunities for efficiency improvement. The sector isone of the most represented in energy efficiencyobligation schemes under Article 7 of the EU EnergyEfficiency Directive (EED), many of the technologiesused are also applicable to other sectors, and the

sector accounts for both large corporations and SMEs.The sector is therefore representative of Europeanindustry and suitable for the validation exercise.

The rationalisation of energy consumption in the foodand beverage industry can represent an opportunityfor the industrial system to reduce costs in theproduction process, but it requires a stable regulatoryframework, a strategy of incentives covering themedium and long term (such as a white certificatescheme), and structural funding of research anddevelopment. The validation, using surveys andnational round-table 'consensus meetings', wil l takeplace in Italy, France, Portugal, Czechia, Spain andTurkey. The final result wil l be a consolidated reportwith EU-level recommendations.

Online good practices databaseThe EU-MERCI project has launched an onlineplatform dedicated to the identified GPs in the mainindustrial sectors in Europe. The main goal is tofacil itate investments in energy efficiency projectsamong industrial stakeholders, with benefits in termsof competitiveness, environment, and social impact.The web platform offers both a library of solutionsdivided by process phase and a searchable databasebased on real project data. The GPs were primarilyselected through the analysis of thousands of realprojects at European level in the aluminium,ammonia, cement, ceramics, petroleum, copper, food& beverage, glass, iron & steel, machinery, and pulp& paper sectors. The database is available viawww.eumerci-portal.eu.

The overarching objective of the EU-MERCI projectis to support energy efficiency in the Europeanindustry sector. It wil l develop methods and toolsfor assisting industry in implementing effectiveenergy efficiency improvements and monitoring ofenergy savings, and assist policy makers in theassessment of the effectiveness and transparencyof energy efficiency mechanisms.

The EU-MERCI project hasreceived funding from thethe European Union'sHorizon 2020 research andinnovation programme.

16JIQ Magazine • July 2017

G20 Energy Efficiency Finance Task Group,2017. G20 Energy Efficiency Investment Toolkit(2017), International Energy Agency, UNEnvironment Finance Initiative andInternational Partnership for Energy EfficiencyCollaboration.This Toolkit offers a new perspective on the challengeof scaling-up energy efficiency investments bydefining and separating 'core' and 'integral' energyefficiency investments. It also provides insights intonational policy developments, showcasing goodpractices, as well as an insight into policy trackingdatabases, using the Voluntary Energy EfficiencyInvestment Principles as a frame for their comparison.Final ly, it is revealed how public and private sectorfinancial institutions are tackling the energy efficiencyinvestment challenge, through their commitments,approaches, tools and by sharing the areas that theyidentify for further joint development.

Howard, A., T. Chagas, J. Hoogzaad, and S.Hoch, 2017. Features and implications of NDCsfor carbon markets, Climate Focus, Amsterdam,Netherlands.The report maps out issues that need to be resolvedto engage voluntary cooperation under Article 6.2 ofthe Paris Agreement. It identifies features andimplications of countries’ nationally determinedcontributions (NDCs) that are particularly relevant tothe design and use of carbon markets in the contextof Article 6.2. The report is structured around therelationship of three key factors: NDC features,accounting for NDCs and internationally transferredmitigation outcomes, and generation of mitigationoutcomes. Possible directions that may be taken inthe CMA guidance are discussed, and areas wherereaching an early understanding among countriescould help unlock further negotiations are suggested.

Marcu, A., 2017. Governance of Article 6 ofthe Paris Agreement and Lessons Learned fromthe Kyoto Protocol, Fixing Climate GovernanceSeries, Paper No. 4, Centre for InternationalGovernance Innovation, Waterloo, ON, Canada.Article 6 under the Paris Agreement provides aframework that al lows for the creation of aninternational carbon market. The Paris Agreement hasbroadly sketched the outl ines of such a market butgiven few details on how it might be madeoperational. This paper identifies the governancechallenges, and choices available, in operationalising

Bais-Moleman, A.L, Sikkema, R., Vis, M.,Reumerman, P., Theurl, M.C. and Erb, K.-H.,2017. Assessing wood use efficiency andgreenhouse gas emissions of wood productcascading in the European Union, Journal ofCleaner Production.Cascading use of biomass is a recognised strategycontributing to an efficient development of thebioeconomy and for mitigating climate change. Thisexplorative study highlights the potential of cascadinguse of woody biomass in the wood production chainsto contribute to a reduction of environmental impactsrelated to wood resource and energy use, but it alsoreveals trade-offs in terms of GHG emissionsreduction, relevant especial ly in meeting short-term(2020–2030) renewable energy targets.

Cames, M., Harthan, R.O., Füssler, J.,Lazarus, M., Lee, C.M., Erickson, P. andSpalding-Fecher, R., 2017. How additional isthe Clean Development Mechanism? Analysis ofthe application of current tools and proposedalternatives, Öko-Institut, Freiburg, Germany.With the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) under the KyotoProtocol wil l end. However, in terms of its standards,procedures, and institutional arrangements, the CDMforms an important basis for the design of futureinternational crediting mechanisms. This studyanalyses the opportunities and limits of the currentCDM framework for ensuring environmental integrity,i.e. that projects are additional and that emissionreductions are not overestimated. In addition, itprovides lessons learned and recommendations forimproving additionality assessment that can beapplied to crediting mechanisms generally, includingto mechanisms to be implemented under Article 6 ofthe Paris Agreement.

Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, 2017.2016-2017 Carbon Pricing Leadership Report.To harness the full potential of carbon pricing toreduce global emissions, governments, business andcivil society need to work together to address the keychallenges. The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition(CPLC) was established to provide a forum forcollaborative leadership on carbon pricing. This reporthighlights the action that CPLC Partners have taken todrive carbon pricing, and outl ines the many ways thatCoalition Partners can, and wil l, continue to lead inthe fight against cl imate change.

Reports Open access /free of charge

17JIQ Magazine • July 2017

article 6, based on the lessons learned from theinternational carbon market serving the KyotoProtocol. It focuses among others on the level ofcentralisation, independence of the regulator, andconditions for robust accounting.

Nett, K. and Wolters, S., 2017. Leveragingdomestic offset projects for a climate-neutralworld: Regulatory conditions and options,German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt) atthe German Environment Agency, Berlin,Germany.Voluntary domestic offset schemes offer greatpotential as instruments for advancing ambitiousclimate action. However, their possible scope of actionis l imited, as mitigation commitments form the KyotoProtocol, the EU ETS and (sub)national compliancemechanisms enhance the risk of double counting. Thestudy identifies challenges and opportunities anddevelops recommendations for advancing thedevelopment of a domestic voluntary market,including official government endorsement ofvoluntary offset mechanisms, in order to increasecredibil ity and avoid creating parallel structures.

Partnership for Market Readiness., 2017. AGuide to Greenhouse Gas benchmarking forClimate Policy Instruments, The World Bank,Washington, United States.Benchmarks have been used in climate policyinstruments to set targets and thresholds forenvironmental performance, and to determine thedistribution of instrument benefits and obligations.Benchmarks can be used when comparing peersagainst each other or against a certain referencelevel, such as best available technology (BAT). Bysetting a common basis for comparison throughbenchmarks, entities are treated in a similar wayunder the rules of a policy instrument. This guide isintended to provide policymakers with structuredguidance on the development of benchmarks. It isbased on global experiences covering practices in 16jurisdictions that are already using or are in theprocess of developing a benchmarking approach.

Rizos, V., Tuokko, K. and Behrens, A., 2017.The Circular Economy: A review of definitions,processes and impacts, Research report No.2017/08, Centre for European Policy Studies,Brussels, Belgium.The major transformation from a linear to a circulareconomy wil l have significant impact on the economy,the environment, and society. Understanding theseimpacts requires developing an in-depth knowledge of

the concept of the circular economy, its processes,and their expected effects on sectors and valuechains. The paper reviews the literature on circulareconomy with the aim of improving our understandingof the concept as well as its various dimensions andexpected impacts. It is suggested that research on thecircular economy is currently fragmented acrossvarious discipl ines and there are often differentperspectives and interpretations of the concept.

World Bank and Ecofys, 2017. CarbonPricing Watch 2017, The World Bank,Washington, United States.The Carbon Pricing Watch is an advance brief fromthe 'state and trends of carbon pricing 2017' report,which wil l be released by the end of 2017. The briefnotes that Parties stating in their NDCs that they areconsidering the use of carbon pricing cover 58 percentof global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, over40 national and 25 subnational jurisdictions areputting a price on carbon. Since January 2016, eightnew carbon pricing initiatives have been implemented,in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario (Canada),Austral ia, Fujian (China), Chile, Colombia, andWashington State (United States). The Chinesenational ETS is planned to be launched in the secondhalf of 2017.

Box 2. Climate Change Mitigation portal.

Online portal highlighting EU-fundedresearch on reducing emissions

The ClimateChangeMitigation.eu portal highlightsinformation from different EU-funded research andcoordination projects emission reduction. Theportal covers a range of mitigation-related topics,including mitigation technologies and practices,scenarios and models, l inks to relevant datasources, case studies, policy information, andstakeholder engagement. 13 EU-funded projectshave joined the portal, and additional projects areinvited to become involved!Linked to the online portal, updates on mitigationresearch are shared on Twitter using the#mitigationEU hashtag.

18JIQ Magazine • July 2017

JIQ Magazine (Joint Implementation Quarterly) isan independent magazine with backgroundinformation about the Kyoto mechanisms,emissions trading, and other climate policy andsustainabil ity issues.

JIQ is of special interest to policy makers,representatives from business, science and non-governmental organisations, and staff ofinternational organisations involved in climatepolicy negotiations and operationalisation ofclimate policy instruments.

Chief Editor:Prof. Catrinus J. Jepma• Chairman of JIN Climate and Sustainabil ity• Professor of Energy and Sustainabil ity at

University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Editors:Wytze van der GaastErwin HofmanEise Spijker

JIQ contact information:JIN Climate and Sustainabil ityLaan Corpus den Hoorn 3009728 JT GroningenThe Netherlandsphone: +31 50 5248430e-mail: j in@jin.ngowebsite: www.jin.ngo

2017 • JIN Climate and Sustainabil ity

6-8 Sept 2017, Coimbra, Portugal2nd World Symposium on Climate Change Adaptation(WSCCA-2017)climasouth.eu/en/node/356

19-20 Sept 2017, New York, United StatesCarbon Forum North America 2017: New marketforces for transformation in the Americasieta.org/event-2362440

25-29 Sept 2017, Amsterdam, Netherlands33rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conferenceand Exhibitionphotovoltaic-conference.com

9-11 October 2017, Amsterdam, NetherlandsOffshore Energy 2017 Exhibition & Conference: oil &gas, wind, and marine energyoffshore-energy.biz

6-17 November 2017, Bonn, Germany2017 UN Climate Change Conference: 23rd Conferenceof the Parties (COP23) under the Presidency of Fij icop23.com.fj

8-9 November 2017, Aarhus, Denmark7th Annual European Biomass to Powerwplgroup.com/aci/event/european-biomass-to-power

27-29 November 2017, Eindhoven, Netherlands3rd ManuREsource conference on manuremanagement and valorizationmanuresource2017.org

6-8 December 2017, Bangkok, ThailandAsia Pacific Carbon Forum 2017ieta.org/event-2362447

JIQ Meeting Planner