Bert Serneels
19.06.2020 06:40
Climate goals
SECAP Development

I have several municipalities that are sort of regional economic hubs, where there is a lot of industry, intensive agriculture (greenhouses) and transport. For these municipalities, it is almost literally impossible to come up with a scenario to reduce emissions 40%. So there are 2 pathways in tackling this: 1. You make an enormous assumption of reduction for these sectors, on which you have very little influence as a local government/community. E.g. for industry, I would consider counting on a 43% reduction of emissions, because this is the EU-ETS goal (2030 vs 2005). 2. You leave these sectors out and make a SECAP with measures only for buildings, local transport, renewable energy, ... this is not the signal I want to give, but it does make it easier to come up with a 'realistic' scenario for CoM. Have other partners had the same issue and what was your approach?

Translate
    Guri Bugge

    This has been an issue for some of the Norwegian pilot municipalities too. They found three possible solutions: 1) excluding industry covered by ETC 2) Setting separate goals for businesses in the ETC and everything else 3) lowering the overall goal. Dialogue with the industry showed that they found it beneficial to be included in the SECAP and within the overall goals (alternative 3). By setting very ambitious goals for everything else (including 100 % fossil free transport sector and agriculture), and including the most ambitious goals the industry was able to set, the municipality are able to set an overall goal of 50% reduction. Including the industry in the SECAP is motivational for the local politicians, and there is a feeling of «we need to implement a lot of measures in all the other sectors in order to protect our industry».

    Translate
    Bert Serneels

    Aren’t SECAP’s in Norway legally binding? Because that would explain to a large extent the motivation for different stakeholders to remain involved in each other’s business. At the moment, the incentive for industry to set ambitious targets is probably the biggest for EU-ETS companies (which are excluded from CoM), but this might change the coming years as regulations on climate and energy become more strict, driven by the Paris Accord, the European Green Deal and the legally binding NECP’s member states need to respect. My hope is that ‘regular’ companies will have more incentives to get involved in local climate action plans by this trend. In the meanwhile, we have to come up with some sort of scenario to meet our obligations to CoM and make an estimated guess on what part industry can play in this. We do however try to involve them, but there usually isn’t really one organisation that can commit the whole sector, certainly not on a local level.

    Translate
    Nathalie Garré

    That is why the PentaHelix approach is crucial in local SECAPs: reaching out to the regionally (and nationally) organised stakeholders, not only the individual businesses. By doing this, you get insight on what all of the actions are. Local governments are not the only responsible to meet the targets. They have to take their responsibility (communicate, facilitate, connect, support,…), but this is also a task for all pillars. We are also translating our experiences towards the provincial, national governments, so they get a better grasp on what they have to do to facilitate action on local level. Of course, in local SECAPs, you also have to integrate the results of the actions of the other stakeholders, although you do not have direct impact yourself (e.g. electrification of mobility). It is impossible to reach 40% reduction in CO2 only by counting in the measures of local governments.

    Translate