Greece 195
appear to concern poor prioritisation and political inertia as a result of an
ongoing political crisis and, once again, a bureaucratic and complex regulatory
framework coupled with limited financial capacity to incentivise and invest in
energy efficiency actions. On another level, stakeholders’ concerns over the
potentially negative consequences of such a pathway appear to almost exclusively focus on the recurrence of a tariff deficit and the possibility of further
impoverishing lower- income households.
It should be noted that the study is based on two different series of stakeholder engagement approaches, involving different stakeholders. This differentiation may be another reason, apart from different considerations of the time
horizon, why so many differences were observed between the sets of risks identified. In fact, discussions on near- term energy efficiency targets were carried out
only with stakeholders from the policymaking group; bringing in representatives
from other expert groups and exploring differences in perceptions across all
stakeholder groups would add valuable insights into the discussion.
The participation of a diverse set of stakeholders in the long- term perspective
part of the study allowed for such differences to be highlighted, providing a
broader picture of risk perception on the Greek energy efficiency front.
However, only three of the original policymaking group participated in the
second part of the study, and this may have been instrumental in obtaining such
a differentiation in risk mapping and evaluation. Another reason behind this
may be found in the abstractness of the policy framework discussed on the longterm perspective. When they were aware of the exact policy instruments, stakeholders appeared capable of matching each measure with its associated risk and
were therefore provided a better context to identify the risks. Discussions on the
long- term vision, by contrast, oriented on the transition pathway rather than
the policies promoting it. The study also lacked the iterative dimension that
would enable consensus building among the participating stakeholders. Finally,
although the discourse mainly draws from detailed discussions with the engaged
stakeholders, the multi- criteria analyses rely on questionnaire- like evaluations,
for which a significantly larger sample size could have been used.
In order to reach its full potential, this kind of research can be linked to
quantitative risk assessment. The more standardised results underlying this narrative have been used as a basis for other analyses, namely a portfolio analysis
for optimising the near- term policy mix and a fuzzy cognitive mapping study for
exploring different long- term transition strategies. Further potential lies in their
transformation and incorporation into quantitative systems’ model- driven analyses, to produce fruitful insights with specific policy implications.
References
Capros, P., De Vita, A., Tasios, N., Siskos, P., Kannavou, M., Petropoulos, A., Evangelopoulou, S., Zampara, M., Papadopoulos, D., Nakos, C., Paroussos, L. (2016). EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
appear to concern poor prioritisation and political inertia as a result of an
ongoing political crisis and, once again, a bureaucratic and complex regulatory
framework coupled with limited financial capacity to incentivise and invest in
energy efficiency actions. On another level, stakeholders’ concerns over the
potentially negative consequences of such a pathway appear to almost exclusively focus on the recurrence of a tariff deficit and the possibility of further
impoverishing lower- income households.
It should be noted that the study is based on two different series of stakeholder engagement approaches, involving different stakeholders. This differentiation may be another reason, apart from different considerations of the time
horizon, why so many differences were observed between the sets of risks identified. In fact, discussions on near- term energy efficiency targets were carried out
only with stakeholders from the policymaking group; bringing in representatives
from other expert groups and exploring differences in perceptions across all
stakeholder groups would add valuable insights into the discussion.
The participation of a diverse set of stakeholders in the long- term perspective
part of the study allowed for such differences to be highlighted, providing a
broader picture of risk perception on the Greek energy efficiency front.
However, only three of the original policymaking group participated in the
second part of the study, and this may have been instrumental in obtaining such
a differentiation in risk mapping and evaluation. Another reason behind this
may be found in the abstractness of the policy framework discussed on the longterm perspective. When they were aware of the exact policy instruments, stakeholders appeared capable of matching each measure with its associated risk and
were therefore provided a better context to identify the risks. Discussions on the
long- term vision, by contrast, oriented on the transition pathway rather than
the policies promoting it. The study also lacked the iterative dimension that
would enable consensus building among the participating stakeholders. Finally,
although the discourse mainly draws from detailed discussions with the engaged
stakeholders, the multi- criteria analyses rely on questionnaire- like evaluations,
for which a significantly larger sample size could have been used.
In order to reach its full potential, this kind of research can be linked to
quantitative risk assessment. The more standardised results underlying this narrative have been used as a basis for other analyses, namely a portfolio analysis
for optimising the near- term policy mix and a fuzzy cognitive mapping study for
exploring different long- term transition strategies. Further potential lies in their
transformation and incorporation into quantitative systems’ model- driven analyses, to produce fruitful insights with specific policy implications.
References
Capros, P., De Vita, A., Tasios, N., Siskos, P., Kannavou, M., Petropoulos, A., Evangelopoulou, S., Zampara, M., Papadopoulos, D., Nakos, C., Paroussos, L. (2016). EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.