Results of online consultation: Deliverable 2.2 on the DEEDS project

Texte intégral

(1)Report. Results of online consultation: Deliverable 2.2 on the DEEDS project. XEXAKIS, Georgios, TRUTNEVYTE, Evelina. Abstract On November 2018, the High-Level Panel 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 economy. 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.. Reference XEXAKIS, Georgios, TRUTNEVYTE, Evelina. Results of online consultation: Deliverable 2.2 on the DEEDS project. Geneva, Switzerland : 2019. Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:139640 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version..

(2) Results of online consultation D2.2.

(3) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. DEEDS Dialogue on European Decarbonisation Pathways GA No. 776646. Deliverable No.. D2.2. Deliverable Title Dissemination level. Results of online consultation Public. Lead participant Written by Reviewed by. University of Geneva Georgios Xexakis, Evelina Trutnevyte Jeroen Brouwer Iker Urdangarin Meabe WFC, EIT InnoEnergy, WBCSD, TNO Final. Acknowledgement Status. 27.08.2019 10.09.2019 21.09.2019 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..

(4) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. Contents Summary and key results ................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Survey design ............................................................................................................................... 3 3 Dissemination .............................................................................................................................. 3 4 Sample ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 4.2. Sample size ..................................................................................................................... 4 Professional background of the respondents .................................................................. 4. 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3. Organisation type ........................................................................................................................ 4 Fields of experience .................................................................................................................... 5 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. 5.2. 5.3. Overall R&I priorities ...................................................................................................... 8. 5.1.1 5.1.2. Evaluation of the R&I priorities suggested in the HLP report ..................................................... 8 Input of the respondents on the overall R&I priorities ............................................................. 11. Transition Super-Labs ................................................................................................... 13. 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3. Evaluation of the Transition Super-Labs from the HLP report .................................................. 13 Suggestions for other Transition Super-Labs in the EU ............................................................. 13 Siting of Transition Super-Labs in the EU .................................................................................. 14. R&I priorities per sector................................................................................................ 15. 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7. R&I priorities for the energy and power sector ........................................................................ 16 R&I priorities for the transportation sector .............................................................................. 19 R&I priorities for industry ......................................................................................................... 21 R&I priorities for agriculture and land use ................................................................................ 22 R&I priorities for cities .............................................................................................................. 24 R&I priorities for social innovation and behavioural/lifestyle changes .................................... 27 R&I priorities for economy and finance .................................................................................... 28. 6 Conclusions and next steps ......................................................................................................... 30 7 Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 31.

(5) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 lowcarbon 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 systemlevel 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 SuperLabs, 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-highlevel-panel-european-decarbonisation-pathways-initiative_en (accessed on 27 August 2019).. 1.

(6) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 2.

(7) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 lowcarbon 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. 2. 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-highlevel-panel-european-decarbonisation-pathways-initiative_en (accessed on 27 August 2019).. 3.

(8) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 4.

(9) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 5.

(10) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 6.

(11) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 7.

(12) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 8.

(13) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 9.

(14) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. Figure 10. Evaluation of the overall R&I priority for the medium-term horizon (2035) 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 11. Evaluation of the first 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.. 10.

(15) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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, 11.

(16) DEEDS – 736646. •. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 12.

(17) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 energyintensive 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 SuperLabs 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.. 3. 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-highlevel-panel-european-decarbonisation-pathways-initiative_en (accessed on 27 August 2019).. 13.

(18) DEEDS – 736646. •. •. •. • •. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. Left-behind areas: Four respondents suggested to site Transition Super-Labs in leftbehind 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. 14.

(19) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 15.

(20) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 fullscale 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. 16.

(21) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 17.

(22) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 18.

(23) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 systemlevel 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. 19.

(24) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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).. 20.

(25) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 longlife 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 (Figures 24-26). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with these 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). 21.

(26) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 (Figures 27-29). The share of the respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with these 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 22.

(27) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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). 23.

(28) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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”.. 24.

(29) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 25.

(30) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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. 26.

(31) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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).. 27.

(32) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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).. 28.

(33) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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.. 29.

(34) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 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 zerocarbon 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.. 30.

(35) DEEDS – 736646. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 7 Appendix Table A1. Survey dissemination details. DEEDS partner that sent survey invitations WFC WFC. To whom they were sent DEEDS WP1 expert database. When they were sent 21.03.19. Estimated number of recipients 95. DEEDS LinkedIn/Twitter/Website. 01.04.19. 2875. 01.04.19. 13. 01.04.19 03.04.19. 13 8069. 04.04.19. > 3000. 04.04.19 05.04.19. 67 9355. WFC WFC. DEEDS consortium partners communication department DEEDS Support network UCL Twitter CAN Europe/ CAN International mailing lists DEEDS mailing list WFC Twitter/LinkedIn. 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. 16.04.19 16.04.19 16.04.19 16.04.19. > 3000 > 3000 > 3000 > 3000. 18.04.19. 4991. 23.04.19. 20512. 23.04.19. 1442. 23.04.19. 198683. 23.04.19. 58589. 23.04.19. 16000. WFC WFC UCL WFC. WFC WFC WFC WFC UNIGE WFC. WFC. WFC. WFC. EIT InnoEnergy. CAN EU budget mailing list CAN Comms mailing list CAN RE mailing list CAN UNFCCC mailing list World Economic Forum’s Expert Network LinkedIn group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/225 1906/) LinkedIn group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/743 6769/) LinkedIn group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/373 1775/) LinkedIn group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/189 4339/) EIT InnoEnergy's stakeholder network + EIT InnoEnergy's employees. 31.

(36) DEEDS – 736646. FEEM FEEM. D2.2 – Results of online consultation. 02.05.19 02.05.19. 2750 3000. 06.05.19. unknown. WFC WFC. FEEM Twitter FEEM Facebook Energy and Social Science Network – mailing list DEEDS Twitter Respondi – access panel. 12.05.19 15.05.19. 343 75. UNIGE. Strommarkttreffen group - mailing list. 15.05.19. unknown. KTH WFC WFC. KTH - mailing list Rescoop network CAN Europe. 21.05.19 06.19 06.19. unknown 4 unknown. WFC. DEEDS Energy Workshop communication with invitees who declined participation at workshop. 06.19. 15. 04.06.19 05.06.19 17.06.19. 343 42 35. 21.06.19. 50. 25.06.19. 343. UNIGE. WFC WFC WFC WBCSD WFC. DEEDS Twitter DEEDS LinkedIn DEEDS Energy Workshop Targeted mailing on relevant WBCSD members DEEDS Twitter. Figure A1. Economic sectors of the respondents that work in business or industry. 32.

(37) Questionnaire 1. Introduction. Introduction What should be the Research and Innovation (R&I) strategy in order to achieve a low-carbon future in the EU, while growing the competitiveness of the EU economy? The High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative has recently published a report that outlines such 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 contribute to 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 funding from 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. 2. 3. 4. 5.. Background questions; Overview of the HLP report; Detailed R&I suggestions per sector; HLP report in the context of global climate change mitigation; Final remarks.. Participation consent Your survey responses will be anonymized and treated confidentially. Our privacy and cookie policy is described on the DEEDS website. Your consent 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 these cases, please send us an email to info@deeds.eu.. 2. Your professional background. Your 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..

(38) Which countries are you professionally familiar with? Please select all that apply..

(39) 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?. 3 Filter Industry sector v_10 Organisation?. 3.1. Which of the following best describes your organisation? - Organisation? (From page 2: Your professional background). Industry type. Which economic sector are you active in (as an individual or as an organisation)?. Please select only one.. equal 7.

(40) 4. Overview of the HLP report. Overview of the High-Level Panel report The High-Level Panel (HLP) of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative was an expert group composed of nine members from research, industry, business and public sector. Commissioner Moedas tasked the HLP with advising the European Commission on the R&I strategy that 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. It published its final report and recommendations in November 2018..

(41) 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 the necessary urgency; ‘Transition Super-Labs’, i.e. very-large-territory initiatives of real-life management of the transition from fossil fuel-based economies to zerocarbon ones.. 5. 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)? Strongly disagree. Short-term priority 1: Tackle the barriers hindering the large-scale deployment of all existing economically convenient low- or zerocarbon solutions.. (a) Barriers to system integration. Disagree. Neither agree or disagree. Agree. Strongly agree.

(42) (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. Strongly disagree. Disagree. Neither agree or disagree. Agree. Strongly agree. Agree. Strongly agree. 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. 6. R&I priorities - Medium term. Overall R&I priorities for decarbonisation (2/4) To what extent do you agree with these priorities for the medium-term horizon (2035)? Strongly disagree. Disagree. Neither agree or disagree.

(43) 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.). 7. R&I priorities - Long term. Overall R&I priorities for decarbonisation (3/4) To what extent do you agree with these priorities for the long-term horizon (2050)? Strongly disagree. Long-term priority 1: Address the challenging areas of decarbonisation.. (a) Steel industry (process-based emissions). (b) Cement industry (process-based emissions). Disagree. Neither agree or disagree. Agree. Strongly agree.

(44) (c) Chemical industry (process-based emissions). (d) Air transport. (e) Shipping. (f) Livestock farming. Strongly disagree. Disagree. Neither agree or disagree. Agree. Strongly agree. 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). 8. Suggestions R&I overall. Overall R&I priorities for decarbonisation (4/4) Do you have any comments or suggestions for the overall R&I strategy? Do you have any R&I actions for decarbonization already planned in your organization?. 9. Transition Super-Labs. Transition-Super Labs 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 solutions. The HLP proposes to establish a small number of ‘Transition Super-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’?.

(45) Strongly disagree. Disagree. Other candidate areas?. Where in the EU could these ‘Transition Super-Labs’ be ideally located?. Please select all that apply.. Neither agree or disagree. Agree. Strongly agree.

(46) 10. 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.. 11 Filter Explore R&I energy. v_185 First sector?. For which sector, described in the HLP report, would you like to give feedback?. equal. 1. - First sector? (From page 10: Choose sector) and. 11.1. c_0001 energy completed? User-defined variable - energy completed? (From page : System). unequal 1. R&I energy roadmap intro. R&I strategy for a fully decarbonised energy system in 2050 The HLP report calls for an R&I strategy that integrates the low-carbon power markets and low-carbon heat, liquid and gas markets. The foreseen R&I priorities are given in the following roadmap..

(47) 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. 11.2. R&I energy priorities (1/3). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (1/3) Whole energy system. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?.

(48) 11.3. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. R&I energy priorities (2/3). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (2/3) Power system. 11.4. R&I energy priorities (3/3). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (3/3). Providing knowledge for the energy system transformation. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?. Do you agree to prioritise this action?.

(49) 11.5. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. 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 interrelated with other sectors and R&I fields. Please give your view to some of the synergies that were highlighted in the HLP report.. 11.6. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by the successful implementation of this synergy?. Do you agree to prioritise the R&I actions that address this synergy?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. 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?.

(50) Source: HLP report. 12 Filter Explore R&I transportation. v_185 First sector?. For which sector, described in the HLP report, would you like to give feedback?. equal. 2. - First sector? (From page 10: Choose sector) and. c_0002 transport completed? User-defined variable - transport completed? (From page : System). 12.1. R&I transportation roadmap. R&I strategy for a decarbonised transport sector in 2050 The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy in four main domains: 1. 2. 3. 4.. society, consumers and new mobility demand patterns; transport technology; integration of the transport system with the energy system and other sectors; 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.. unequal 1.

(51) Source: HLP report. 12.2. R&I transportation priorities (1/3). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (1/2). Transport technology development and system integration. 12.3. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?. R&I transportation priorities (2/3). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (2/2) New mobility demand patterns How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?.

(52) 12.4. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know. 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 other sectors and R&I fields. Please give your view to some of the synergies that were highlighted in the HLP report. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by the successful implementation of this synergy?. Do you agree to prioritise the R&I actions that address this synergy?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know.

(53) Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. 12.5. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. 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. Do you have any comments or suggestions?. Source: HLP report. 13 Filter Explore R&I industry. v_185 First sector?. For which sector, described in the HLP report, would you like to give feedback?. equal. 3. - First sector? (From page 10: Choose sector) and. c_0003 industry completed? User-defined variable - industry completed? (From page : System). 13.1. unequal 1. R&I industry roadmap. R&I strategy for a decarbonised industry in 2050 The HLP report calls for a R&I strategy with four key pillars: 1. 2. 3. 4.. energy efficiency and material savings; deep electrification; embedding industrial processes in the circular economy; innovation in zero-carbon breakthroughs for process-based emissions industries.. 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..

(54) Source: HLP report. 13.2. R&I industry priorities (1/2). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (1/2). 13.3. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to the competitiveness of the EU economy?. How likely is it that this action is successfully implemented by the suggested enddate?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Do you agree to prioritise this action?. Do you agree that this action contributes to. How likely is it that this action is successfully. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by this action?. R&I industry priorities (2/2). Your feedback on the HLP R&I priorities (2/2) How high can be the emission cuts.

(55) delivered by this action?. 13.4. the competitiveness of the EU economy?. implemented by the suggested enddate?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very likely Likely About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Don't know. 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 sectors and R&I fields. Please give your view to some of the synergies that were highlighted in the HLP report.. 13.5. How high can be the emission cuts delivered by the successful implementation of this synergy?. Do you agree to prioritise the R&I actions that address this synergy?. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. Very high High Moderate Low Very low Don't know. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know. R&I industry suggestions. Your input on R&I for decarbonised industry.