Austria 29
workshop setting. Two main dimensions to be considered in the pathways emerged,
which were: i) a detailed description of the needed technological change and a timeline for implementation of mitigation technologies for the two focus sectors, as well
as their future sectoral interrelationships; and ii) the institutional framework and
corresponding milestones, emphasising the institutional and political needs for initiating and staying on the decarbonisation track until 2050.
Throughout the process of development of transition pathways, about 100 risks
and uncertainties were worked out by stakeholders and the research team in an
iterative co-creation process (first workshop and bilateral calls). These risks were
first clustered for further processing and ranking in the second stakeholder workshop, in a World Café setting, and comprise implementation as well as consequential risks. Although stakeholders were asked about these different kinds of risk in
the first round, going into detailed exploration of the core problem and the question behind each risk (as well as ranking the risks) is much easier by thinking in
thematic complexes.
Bilateral calls between the two workshops were also used to refine and discuss
assumptions and results of the specific pathways (for the steel and iron and corresponding electricity pathway), which were entered into the macroeconomic model
for assessing impacts.
The feedback on macroeconomic assessments were essential for deploying the
WEGDYN computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (Mayer, Bachner, and
Steininger, 2019) and the E3ME econometric model (Barker et al., 2012) to
inform and quantify selected consequential risks.
Furthermore, a survey was conducted to evaluate risks by different criteria (e.g.
impact of risk, timing, and probability).
The most important participating stakeholder groups were from industry (the
iron and steel, cement, petrochemical, and innovative technologies for renewable
energy), power supply companies, the chamber of labour (as part of the ‘social
partnership’ which is part of the Austrian consensus- based political system), ministries (Environment, Finance), political parties (only from the Green Party; other
parties were invited but did not attend the workshop due to elections), and
NGOs. Our approach has been to collect risks over a very broad spectrum by
inviting relevant stakeholders from diverse fields. Hence, we only focus on
different (categories of ) risks and rarely differentiate between perceptions. While
the risks for industry were not sufficiently clear to other stakeholders, societal
risks, such as distributional effects, were highlighted by NGOs or the chamber of
labour. Instead of necessarily finding a consensus on all major risks, the range of
risk was illustrated to provide a basis for policy design, as Austrian policymakers so
far have a limited understanding of the risks related to a low- carbon transition.
Austria is a country with a strong industrial base and a large electricity generating sector. The latter has a high share of renewables, although there is still
potential to increase this. The country is highly developed and wealthy, with
large natural resources and a highly educated population. In principle, it has the
institutional and financial prerequisites needed for a transition to a low- carbon
economy and to be a driver and frontrunner within the EU.
workshop setting. Two main dimensions to be considered in the pathways emerged,
which were: i) a detailed description of the needed technological change and a timeline for implementation of mitigation technologies for the two focus sectors, as well
as their future sectoral interrelationships; and ii) the institutional framework and
corresponding milestones, emphasising the institutional and political needs for initiating and staying on the decarbonisation track until 2050.
Throughout the process of development of transition pathways, about 100 risks
and uncertainties were worked out by stakeholders and the research team in an
iterative co-creation process (first workshop and bilateral calls). These risks were
first clustered for further processing and ranking in the second stakeholder workshop, in a World Café setting, and comprise implementation as well as consequential risks. Although stakeholders were asked about these different kinds of risk in
the first round, going into detailed exploration of the core problem and the question behind each risk (as well as ranking the risks) is much easier by thinking in
thematic complexes.
Bilateral calls between the two workshops were also used to refine and discuss
assumptions and results of the specific pathways (for the steel and iron and corresponding electricity pathway), which were entered into the macroeconomic model
for assessing impacts.
The feedback on macroeconomic assessments were essential for deploying the
WEGDYN computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (Mayer, Bachner, and
Steininger, 2019) and the E3ME econometric model (Barker et al., 2012) to
inform and quantify selected consequential risks.
Furthermore, a survey was conducted to evaluate risks by different criteria (e.g.
impact of risk, timing, and probability).
The most important participating stakeholder groups were from industry (the
iron and steel, cement, petrochemical, and innovative technologies for renewable
energy), power supply companies, the chamber of labour (as part of the ‘social
partnership’ which is part of the Austrian consensus- based political system), ministries (Environment, Finance), political parties (only from the Green Party; other
parties were invited but did not attend the workshop due to elections), and
NGOs. Our approach has been to collect risks over a very broad spectrum by
inviting relevant stakeholders from diverse fields. Hence, we only focus on
different (categories of ) risks and rarely differentiate between perceptions. While
the risks for industry were not sufficiently clear to other stakeholders, societal
risks, such as distributional effects, were highlighted by NGOs or the chamber of
labour. Instead of necessarily finding a consensus on all major risks, the range of
risk was illustrated to provide a basis for policy design, as Austrian policymakers so
far have a limited understanding of the risks related to a low- carbon transition.
Austria is a country with a strong industrial base and a large electricity generating sector. The latter has a high share of renewables, although there is still
potential to increase this. The country is highly developed and wealthy, with
large natural resources and a highly educated population. In principle, it has the
institutional and financial prerequisites needed for a transition to a low- carbon
economy and to be a driver and frontrunner within the EU.