190 Alexandros Nikas et al.
Greek political scene appears to be a severe implementation risk. This is primarily seen as a short- term risk; however, it is also associated with longer- term
uncertainties, such as the economic environment. This instability is also
reflected in recent high abstention levels, frequent movements of members of
parliament among elected parties, an inability to form single- party governments,
as well as the weak ruling of coalition governments and a record of snap elections. In the longer run, the main concern of stakeholders appears to be the poor
prioritisation of climatic change and action, and political inertia. Amidst the ongoing
economic crisis, and in light of the respective national commitments, all political parties’ priorities are perceived to be mainly of socio- economic nature and
to orient on addressing the recession, rather than climate change mitigation and
sustainable energy use. This is why policymaking in Greece is believed to focus
on a short- term perspective without a clear and solid strategy, mainly driven by
commitments to the austerity- oriented memoranda.
With regard to the Greek economy, all stakeholders are significantly concerned with the adverse economic environment in Greece and the respective
lack of financial capacity. This began with the difficulties in overcoming what
appeared to be a short- term recession at a global scale but is still in effect and is
estimated to have long- lasting economic implications for the average Greek
household. This concern refers not only to the capacity of the state to incentivise a low- carbon transition in the longer run, but also to the capacity of citizens
to make use of available incentives and invest in energy upgrades for their
dwellings. Additionally, this particular implementation risk is even more complicated in the context of the built environment since the economic situation is
also a key driving force for the construction sector.
When looking at the transition pathway itself, rather than a number of
policy strategies designed specifically with the aim of promoting such a pathway,
stakeholders are also concerned with the possibility of a general lack of economic
incentives, subsidies, and tax breaks. The latter, however, is deemed to be of lower
importance since incentives and other financial mechanisms are considered
primarily dependent on the will, determination, and financial capacity of the
government, rather than on a multitude of exogenous factors. It is noteworthy
that the three engaged policymakers almost rejected the possibility of lack of
economic incentives actually happening and found its potential impact on the
pathway negligible. This was not the case with a perceived probable continuation of the economic recession and the consequent lack of financial capacity.
From a regulatory perspective, the main reservations regarded the fuzziness/
complexity of the regulatory and policy framework. This is closely related to the
instability of the political scene, but mostly reflects an ever- changing framework as a result of the deficit- amending modifications and the hitherto shortterm nature of energy and climate action planning. What appeared to matter
equally as much to stakeholders, in terms of severity and impact on the transition pathway, is the inherent bureaucracy of the processes necessary for incentive programme applications, energy upgrade certifications, etc. However,
complicated bureaucratic processes appear to be more critical, given that all
Greek political scene appears to be a severe implementation risk. This is primarily seen as a short- term risk; however, it is also associated with longer- term
uncertainties, such as the economic environment. This instability is also
reflected in recent high abstention levels, frequent movements of members of
parliament among elected parties, an inability to form single- party governments,
as well as the weak ruling of coalition governments and a record of snap elections. In the longer run, the main concern of stakeholders appears to be the poor
prioritisation of climatic change and action, and political inertia. Amidst the ongoing
economic crisis, and in light of the respective national commitments, all political parties’ priorities are perceived to be mainly of socio- economic nature and
to orient on addressing the recession, rather than climate change mitigation and
sustainable energy use. This is why policymaking in Greece is believed to focus
on a short- term perspective without a clear and solid strategy, mainly driven by
commitments to the austerity- oriented memoranda.
With regard to the Greek economy, all stakeholders are significantly concerned with the adverse economic environment in Greece and the respective
lack of financial capacity. This began with the difficulties in overcoming what
appeared to be a short- term recession at a global scale but is still in effect and is
estimated to have long- lasting economic implications for the average Greek
household. This concern refers not only to the capacity of the state to incentivise a low- carbon transition in the longer run, but also to the capacity of citizens
to make use of available incentives and invest in energy upgrades for their
dwellings. Additionally, this particular implementation risk is even more complicated in the context of the built environment since the economic situation is
also a key driving force for the construction sector.
When looking at the transition pathway itself, rather than a number of
policy strategies designed specifically with the aim of promoting such a pathway,
stakeholders are also concerned with the possibility of a general lack of economic
incentives, subsidies, and tax breaks. The latter, however, is deemed to be of lower
importance since incentives and other financial mechanisms are considered
primarily dependent on the will, determination, and financial capacity of the
government, rather than on a multitude of exogenous factors. It is noteworthy
that the three engaged policymakers almost rejected the possibility of lack of
economic incentives actually happening and found its potential impact on the
pathway negligible. This was not the case with a perceived probable continuation of the economic recession and the consequent lack of financial capacity.
From a regulatory perspective, the main reservations regarded the fuzziness/
complexity of the regulatory and policy framework. This is closely related to the
instability of the political scene, but mostly reflects an ever- changing framework as a result of the deficit- amending modifications and the hitherto shortterm nature of energy and climate action planning. What appeared to matter
equally as much to stakeholders, in terms of severity and impact on the transition pathway, is the inherent bureaucracy of the processes necessary for incentive programme applications, energy upgrade certifications, etc. However,
complicated bureaucratic processes appear to be more critical, given that all