Ondrej Sramek, Public Affairs Director Eastern Europe at Knauf Insulation, provides his reflections on a reflection by Sophie Shnapp on the recent eceee Summer Study 2015. Hopefully we will hear from someone at eceee about these concerns.
Why and how eceee Summer Study should change
Like Sophie Shnapp and hundreds of other energy efficiency professionals, I was lucky to participate at eceee Summer Study for the third time this year. And although my overall reflection is as always positive, I think there are three issues that I feel should be openly discussed if we are to answer Sophie’s question:
„What is the energy efficiency community doing wrong? Why are they struggling to show that the cheapest energy is the energy we don’t spend, efficient energy?“.
Sophie proposes an EE Collective Impact campaign, which I thoroughly support. I think Summer Study itself should aspire to be the place where this common movement takes root and below I propose three things that should change in order for this to happen.
- Change focus: the EU is not just Western Europe
Thanks to numerous presentations, I probably know more than I ever will need to know about Green Deal and KfW by now. Granted, they both are very important policy initiatives. But let’s be honest: both the UK and German governments are probably those that need the least support in developing energy efficiency policies.
Where were are sessions about Poland where energy efficiency needs to be sold much more on the basis of clean air and local pollution because the carbon discussion is not a driving policy there at all? Where are sessions on Bulgaria, which until recently had no renovation policy and has just launched an otherworldly 100% subsidy scheme for buildings renovation? Where are sessions on Hungary, where CEU in Budapest produced some of the best renovation-focused research in CEE region, but where government seems to act in a completely unpredictable and disconnected manner?
How can we continue to act surprised that Eastern Europe continues to play a negative role when it comes to anything related to energy efficiency and climate policy more generally when we have not done much as a community to change this?
One of the reasons why participation from CEE region at Summer Study is so low is undoubtedly the prohibitively high cost. I’m grateful that the European Climate Foundation has generously sponsored at least some policy people from the CEE region to take part, but that’s still a long way from where we need to be.
Would it not make sense to consider organizing the next Summer Study with Eastern, as well as Western Europe, in mind? In fact, why not even organize it in Eastern Europe?
- Summer Study is too academic and needs to open itself up to the policy community
Admittedly, I’m a policy/advocacy guy, not an academic. But in my defense, I hold a PhD in political science, so I have gone through my share of academic training. Yet, too often, as is the case with many academic presentations, at Summer Study the “So what?” question hangs in the air following presentations.
What is the point of research without policy implications, which only generates more questions for more future research? All too often were we presented with empirical research with all the right ingredients including data sets, statistical analysis, but which in the end lacked any strong real-world implications. I know of several policy colleagues (both from business and NGOs) who submitted abstracts but were turned down by reviewers asking them to “academize” their papers by referencing nearly every sentence.
I appreciate an academic approach and even in advocacy independent academic research is irreplaceable, but the organizers should consider redressing the balance by dedicating some of the panels to policy and advocacy. I’m not arguing for dropping the peer-review process. But it would help if policy and advocacy presentations are peer-reviewed by policy and advocacy people, not academics. Both worlds could benefit from this tremendously – academics could appreciate the real-life “so what?” connection, while advocacy people could learn about better substantiating their claims and withstanding scrutiny.
- Summer Study is a missed opportunity to show the strengths of our sector to policy makers
One of the weakest parts of this year’s program was the Plenaries. With all due respect to excellent professionals like Paul Hodson and Claude Turmes, whose presentations were very interesting, such an event which brings together the crème de la crème of the world of energy efficiency should aim much higher.
The European Commission’s Vice President for Energy Maros Sefcovic and perhaps even President Jean-Claude Juncker or European Council President Donald Tusk were all fitting candidates for key note speakers–and it would have done wonders for their environmental credibility. Sophie writes correctly that we increasingly realize that we need to reach out to ministers of finance and leaders of the financial sector, but when we have a prefect chance at THE event of our sector, we don’t use it. Former-commissioner for Climate from the DG that failed us so much on a 2030 binding energy efficiency target will not do, I’m afraid.
We also should have more courage to invite people from “the other side” – representatives of energy companies, including the Magritte Group. Let us make the plenaries much more controversial with a real hot debate about the future of our energy system. We should be able to defend our vision against them, not just patting our backs in our closed circle.
To end on a positive note: Despite all this (I hope constructive) criticism, I have enjoyed eceee Summer Study tremendously. It really is THE place to go to network with people from across EU on energy efficiency. The atmosphere is fantastic, venue and organization is great but I do think it’s time to move it to the next level.
What do you think? I’d be happy to hear your opinion.
Full disclosure: I am an energy efficiency lobbyist responsible for Eastern Europe, so all suggestions above would predominantly benefit myself.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
As somebody who was directly involved in the initial formation of ECEEE 20 + years ago, I entirely endorse this perspective.
Originally the idea had been to provide a political showcase for the First Fuel to present itself to the outside world. But over the years the biannual meeting has become more and more dominated by theoretical musings, rather than realpolitik.
Of course there should be occasions when academic researchers come together, making their pleas for funding for still further arcane research. But such activity should no longer dominate proceedings at the main showcase event.
After all, as the saying goes, if we in the energy efficiency world have been so clever all these years, how come we still ain’t rich?
You make some very good points, Andrew. I hope that we hear from someone from eceee on these points.
Andrew thanks for endorsement. I don’t mean to belittle academic research, it is very important for us practical advocacy people as it provides substantiation. But it cannot succeed alone. It must be complemented with working advocacy strategy. We need to work on this together, academics and advocacy practicioners…