Good Practice Exchange Between Bottrop and Thessaloniki Workshop Report

Home , Bottrop

Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki Workshop report

Table of Contents

Abstract: main findings �� 4

1. Project description. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe �� 5

2. Germany: Energiewende at the local level �� 7

3. Bottrop InnovationCity Ruhr �� 9

4. Greece, the empire of wind and sun �� 12

5. Thessaloniki: a potential energy self sufficiency �� 14

6. Bottrop – Thessaloniki Workshop �� 15

6.1 Groupwork Results �� 15

6.2 Possible fields of cooperation: good practice transfer �� 16

Conclusions �� 19 4 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

Abstract: main findings

By the multi-stakeholder workshop in Berlin in • Between the key stakeholders – entrepreneurs, November, 2015 a pilot project between the munic- civil society and local authorities – there is deep- ipalities of Bottrop and Thessaloniki was initiated rooted political will to cooperate at the local and within the European Growth Initiative. The event trans-border levels. hosted representatives of local authorities, organized civil society, the business sector and science. Local • There is a need to involve public funds to kick-start stakeholders identified “good practice” examples no-regret investments that could trigger entrepre- to transfer knowledge between the communities – neurial and social revival in Greece. irrelevant to the country-specific setting and current economic situation. • The European cohesion funds or financial tools of the European Investment Bank (i.e. within the The main findings resulting from the workshops were framework of the Investment Plan for Europe) as follows: could play a major role in attracting investors by minimizing investment risks and securing bene- • There is an urgent need in Greece to stimulate the fits, in terms of both monetary revenues for inves- economy through local investments based on local tors and high quality investments for the local resources. communities.

• Greek entrepreneurs are willing to invest, however • European investment policy at the local level, current economic constraints block them. backed by public participation and implemented in accordance with good governance codes, could • Local communities in Greece are constantly faced serve as a successful and valuable dimension of with a deficit of workplaces – their inhabitants are the European integration, helping to regain trust at risk of poverty and worsening living conditions. in the idea of European Union.

• Bottrop has so far successfully managed structural The “Growth Initiative – Municipalities for a transformation, minimizing social risks and buff- Strong Europe”, a pilot project involving the local ering structural mismatches by long-term socio- communities of Bottrop and Thessaloniki, was part economic transition programs. of Advocate Europe, the European idea challenge by MitOst in cooperation with Liquid Democracy, • Bottrop is ready to share its innovation, know-how funded by Stiftung Mercator. and experience in structural sustainable transformation at the local level. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 5

1. Project description. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe

Introduction Meanwhile, the framework for resilient Energy The European Growth Initiative (EGI) is a program Union was developed, bringing the challenges of implemented by HUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Governance energy transition. To be successful, the idea of “green Platform (HVGP) that seeks to overcome structural growth” must be implemented in a sustainable and difficulties related to energy transition and economic participatory way. The need for political solutions downturn in European municipalities. The goal is to at the European level is urgent, however it is also develop project models that include finance options important to enhance a bottom-up approach in the and multi-stakeholder participation. The program European policies. activities follow a 3-phase-path: 1) workshops for communities and their stakeholders to identify needs Therefore, developing German-Greek cooperation at and resources available; 2) further research and eval- the municipal level can be a complementary element uation of implemented local policies; 3) wider follow- in overcoming not only the financial crisis but also the up initiatives – networking with municipalities from lack of trust in the European Union. Bottrop was a other EU Member States. Trialog workshops should heavy industrialized coalmining city that faced serious result in key local stakeholders (authorities, organ- challenges: it had to restructure its economic model ized civil society, trade unions, investors and the busi- and energy policy. Today, it’s an InnovationCity in the ness sector) identifying existing structural problems Ruhr area focused on innovative multipliable models to later transfer relevant “good practices” between of development. This idea is intended to be spread in the municipalities. the region – our project would like to add a European scope. Severely hit by the financial crisis, Thessaloniki The Bottrop (DE) – Thessaloniki (GR) cooperation suffered from a shrinking manufacturing sector and project serves as a pilot phase within the EGI program. growing unemployment. The city is eager to trans- Successful cooperation of those local communities form its energy policy, what manifests in its Energy should deliver common models for other EU commu- Cities membership. We believe that linking these nities and later involve municipalities from other EU two municipalities to learn from each other will help countries. them develop sustainable energy models, create jobs and improve understanding between Germany and Greece, as well as strengthen the integrity of the EU. Background Since 2009 Europe has been struggling with the global financial crisis. The most unfortunate course of Motivation & objectives events occurred in Greece, where the level of public Workshops gathering participants from Greece and debt exceeded 180% GDP and the youth unemploy- Germany, followed-up by the analysis of the stake- ment rate reached 50%. The economic crisis brought holder positions and complemented by support for also political tensions, that could mostly be seen on cooperation between the stakeholders in the cities the North-South axis: Germany-Greece. are the core activity of the project. Inviting the municipalities of Bottrop and Thessaloniki, as well as the local stakeholders to participate and share 6 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

“good practice” approaches to energy supply and Organization and leadership quality of labor or to exchange their experiences The HUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Governance Platform with similar structural problems should contribute to (HVGP) is a not-for-profit, limited liability company, better understanding of their own limits and oppor- based in Berlin/Germany. It was established in July tunities, multi-stakeholder ownership of develop- 2014, building on the proven project methodology ment strategies and international partnerships for of the former Humboldt-Viadrina School of Govern- rebuilding European integration. The later follow- ance. Our Trialogs (a format for multi-stakeholder up initiative would aim at developing more repli- meetings) and governance projects bring together cable multi-stakeholder decision-making models for the government, business and civil society, with the a more democratic approach in shaping local invest- support of scientific contributors and the media in ment plans/industrial policy and sustainable devel- order to find practical solutions for social challenges opment in Europe. and to contribute to sustainable democratic politics. This concerted and targeted collaboration of all From the local perspective, the objectives of the social actors is necessary in order to gain a common project refer to facilitating knowledge exchange in understanding of multi-faceted social challenges, implementing energy transition – Energiewende – at to develop strategic solutions and mobilize political the local level: coalitions. • linking municipalities with “green business” in order to help them develop investment ideas in renewable energy sources (RES)/energy efficiency that would be most appropriate for the local communities, • facilitating local strategies for sustainable development, • promoting “good governance” at the local level, • raising awareness about the social aspects of energy policy.

From a more general perspective, the expected impacts of the project refer to: Prof. Dr. Gesine Schwan is a political scientist with • fostering successful structural changes emerging focus on political culture, democratic theory and from the energy transition in the education system political psychology. She was dean of the Otto-Suhr and in industry, Institute (Political Science Department) at Freie • tackling energy poverty and improving living condi- Universität Berlin, president of the Europa Universität tions of the local communities, Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) and later of the Humboldt- • contributing to the EU environmental goals of low Viadrina School of Governance in Berlin. She chairs carbon economy. the Commission for Fundamental Values of the Executive Committee (Grundwertekommission) of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). In 2004 and 2009 she was candidate for the position of the federal president of Germany. She is co-founder and president of the HUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Governance Platform. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 7

2. Germany: Energiewende at the local level

Germany has two unique features that are of great democratic legitimization granted through general importance to successful and fair structural transi- elections. tions. First, Germany’s administrative system allows for relative autonomy at the lower levels (municipali- A specific feature of the German administrative ties, counties). Second, a well developed energy tran- system gives the federal states “the right to legislate sition policy at the national level is complemented insofar as this Basic Law does not confer legislative by a strong political will to support innovation and power on the Federation”2, which translates into coherent bottom-up projects. relative independence when tackling regional issues relevant only to particular federal states. As a result, various legal systems function at the local level Subsidiarity: an asset for regional depending on various historical development paths. development This “path dependency” has a tangible effect in When considering local development strategies in Germany’s regional diversity, also in terms of defined Germany it is crucial to reflect upon its characteristic development models and implemented regional federal system. It is based on the subsidiarity rule, policies. understood as decentralized redistribution of responsibility for decision-making processes depending on As for the competences at the local level, the munic- their complexity, scale and impact. The competences ipalities have planning autonomy. They are inde- spread from the national state level through 16 federal pendent in shaping the local environment: urban states and respective counties and municipalities. and landscape planning, developing housing estates, business zones, tourist infrastructure and environ- Article 28.2 of the German Federal Constitution mental protection. The ultimate objective for any grants those basic communal units the right “to decision-making processes at the local level should regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility, be the well-being of inhabitants and their peaceful within the limits prescribed by the laws. Within the coexistence through the most effective use of finan- limits of their functions designated by a law, asso- cial and economic resources3. ciations of municipalities shall also have the right of self-government according to the laws. The guar- antee of self-government shall extend to the bases Energiewende – new trademark of of financial autonomy; these bases shall include the Germany right of municipalities to a source of tax revenues Energy transition (Energiewende) is a general name based upon economic ability and the right to estab- for sustainable production and consumption of energy lish the rates at which these sources shall be taxed”1. both in terms of resource saving and gas emissions. Political processes at the local level must have a The two main pillars of energy transition in Germany

1 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 28. Land constitutions – Autonomy of municipalities, paragraph (2), Deutscher Bundestag, November 2012, p. 31; www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf 2 Op.cit., Article 70. Division of powers between the Federation and the Länder, p. 57. 3 Fleckenstein J., Kientz J., 2014, Struktur deutscher Kommunen, Deutsch-Griechische Versammlung, 2/2014, p. 9. 8 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

are: energy efficiency (consumption) and renew- Apart from technological aspects Energiewende is able energy sources (production), complemented by also a socio-economic transition as it affects produc- developing intelligent grid and energy storage (redis- tion and consumption patterns of societies. This tribution)4. In December 2014 the federal govern- “third industrial revolution” might effect whole ment launched a National Energy Efficiency Plan regions by structural transformation, influencing (Nationaler Aktionsplan Energieeffizienz – NAPE) major industry sectors and individual lives. On the to decrease primary energy consumption through one hand, technological progress changes the labor investments (e.g. in public and private buildings), markets and allows for decentralization of energy consultancy services and bottom-up initiatives for markets: production, distribution, consumption. On energy efficiency5. the other hand, it might trigger re-communalisation of infrastructure, revive local economies based on The importance of renewable energy sources in innovative SME’s and promote collective property at Germany grew after implementing the Act on Renew- the local level. Consequently, it becomes a political ables (EEG) on April 1st of 2000, amended in 2014. and axiological change for the foundation of modern The objective is to increase the competitiveness of societies, especially in addition to the newly redis- energy transition for the citizens and companies, as covered value of the natural environment and land- well as to manage the capacity of energy produc- scape protection. tion and distribution system. Nowadays, nearly one quarter of all produced electric energy in Germany comes from wind, sun, biomass or other renewable energy sources6.

Energy transition started in Germany and it continues with good results, especially at the local level: “[t]he energy transition is our avenue into a secure, envi- ronmentally friendly, and economically successful future (…) renewable energy is now Germany’s most important energy source for electricity. And not only are we increasingly relying on green energy – we are also using it more economically. This is good for the climate and also strengthens Germany’s position as a country with a large industrial sector. The energy transition is opening up new fields of business for German companies, promoting innovation, and creating jobs.”7

4 “Häufige Fragen zur Energiewende”, Umweltbundesamt, www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klimaenergie/klimaschutz-energiepolitik-in-deutschland/ haeufige-fragen-zur-energiewende 5 “Nationaler Aktionsplan Energieeffizienz (NAPE)”, Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, www.bfee-online.de/bfee/europa_und_deutschland/ aktionsplan_energieeffizienz 6 “Erneuerbare Energien auf einen Blick”, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Erneuerbare-Energien/ erneuerbare-energien-auf-einen-blick.html 7 “The Energy Transition”, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Energy/energy-transition.html Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 9

3. Bottrop InnovationCity Ruhr

Ruhrgebiet: a story of transformation8 urban structures were developed by improving The Ruhrgebiet (Ruhr valley) is the largest urban the living environment, building recreational areas agglomeration in Germany with the population of and implementing municipal reorganization. The over 5m inhabitants, of which nearly one quarter is of accompanying de-industrialization of the region was immigrant background9. For the last two centuries its complemented by social policy incentives, cushioning development was determined by heavy industry: coal industrial degradation – layoffs of workers could be and zinc mining, steel works, and arms production. avoided with early retirement schemes or vocational The region became the industrial heart of Germany re-training programs. This has however not saved the with its growing demand for skilled and unskilled Ruhrgebiet from structural mismatches and outflow labor, which resulted in extreme population density of the skilled labor force. Moreover, no innovative and environmental damage. Despite heavy damage industries were ready to replace the mines and steel- in World War II, production restarted in 1950, with works that were closing down. The Ruhr area became 143 coal minings delivering over 100m tons of fossil regarded as obsolete and outdated – a region with fuel a year. The reborn industry gave jobs to nearly poor financial strategies. 1m coal and steel workers. Thus, in the 1990s the “third urbanization” started. The first wave of industrialization in 19th century Urban renewal programs such as “Districts with resulted in developing polycentric and highly popu- Special Development Needs”, “Urban Renewal West”, lated area. Geologically determined location of “Social City” and “Integrated Urban Development” “industrial villages” could not develop any urban func- were launched to solve the problems of neighbor- tionality, though. On the contrary, the steel industry – hood decay, social segregation and urban fragmen- located at the edge of the cities and providing its tation. Restoration of urban open areas and green labor force with own settlements – created a quasi- spaces, cheaper modern housing and branding of urban infrastructure, adding to the fragmentarisation industrial heritage became the new developmental of the region. Asides from spatial incoherence, the path for the region. Ruhr area suffered from environmental pollution as well as social problems. The latest developments, enhanced by regional authorities, as well as the national development In the late 1960’s the “second urbanization” program policy paradigm open a new chapter for the Ruhr was launched, focusing on education campaigns that gebiet – modernization and (green) re-industriali- resulted in funding higher education institutions in zation though Energiewende. When industries are the region. Within the municipal priority program, closed down, not only do unemployment and risk-of- the mobility of workforce was enhanced by invest- poverty tend to grow, but also the problem of depop- ments in public transport and highway expansion ulation/brain-drain emerges. Thus, reducing pollu- for settlement and infrastructural renewal. Modern tion and improving energy efficiency is mostly of

8 Based on the “Metropole Ruhr – das neue Ruhrgebiet. Vom Kohlenpott zur Wissensregion”, www.metropoleruhr.de/land-leute/daten-fakten/ geschichte.html; “Problemkontext der Metropole Ruhr”, www.ruhrgebietregionalkunde.de/zukunftsperspektiven/metropole_ruhr/problemkontext_ mr.php?p=2,0 9 “Die Metropole Ruhr hat 5.062.307 Einwohner (Zensus 2011)”, www.metropoleruhr.de/regionalverband-ruhr/statistik-analysen/statistik-trends/ bevoelkerung/zensus-2011.html 10 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

secondary importance. Energiewende has a potential By launching the InnovationCity Ruhr project in not only to solve the problems of low income house- 2010 Bottrop became a model city for tackling struc- holds by lowering household bills, but also to revive tural mismatches by fair transformation. The town local economies by applying structural solutions to became a real-life laboratory for innovative urban structural changes: building innovative industries and solutions dealing with climate change and struc- services, providing new education paths for employ- tural transformation of heavy industrialized areas. ability skills, and investing in urban innovations. The InnovationCity project addresses not only the commercial sector, but also the inhabitants of the region. In the long run it aims at increasing the quality Bottrop: from post-industrial town to of life in ecological, social and economic terms. The innovation city redevelopment of this local community should be Bottrop (116,000 inhabitants), was a mining town implemented by the means of Energiewende, i.e. for 150 years. The last coal pit in Germany will be through promoting energy efficiency and renewable closed there in 2018. The city has to adapt – 2,000 energy sources. A green city also provides a higher new jobs need to be created. The municipality has standard of living for its inhabitants. a green urban focus and needs economic stability – a relatively low unemployment rate must be main- InnovationCity Ruhr relies on strong private sector tained during restructuring. New jobs will emerge in partnerships for industry knowledge and capital. the green economy. Academic partners were also invited to facilitate Bottrop’s metamorphosis. Bringing industry, the science and politics around one table was one of the vital steps to success. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 11

Master plan for urban innovation10 By 2015, within the framework of InnovationCity The Master plan for InnovationCity Ruhr foresees a Ruhr, more than 300 individual projects have been climate-friendly urban reinvention. It’s target is to developed. The spectrum of activities is very broad reduce 50% of carbon dioxide emissions in the city by including: investments in housing, energy and 2020 through retrofitting the existing infrastructure – urban infrastructure, mobility, consulting, aware- housing, industrial halls, technical equipment – to ness-raising campaigns, and developing interna- reduce energy consumption and emission of pollu tional cooperation. Until 2015, within the framework tants. So far, the task is limited to a pilot area of of InnovationCity Ruhr more than 300 individual 70,000 inhabitants at the heart of Bottrop. The projects were developed. The spectrum of activi- “Urban Redevelopment District” is a special tool ties is very broad, including: investments in housing, enabling the municipality to receive funding from the energy and urban infrastructure, mobility, as well as state for the retrofitting program. consulting, awareness-raising campaigns and developing international cooperation.

Infrastructural innovations at the local level Through investments in sustainable urban infrastruc- Governance innovations at the local level ture the energy efficiency of modernized buildings The InnovationCity project is not a standard activity – in Bottrop exceeds the national rate four times over. it is a public policy innovation in Germany. As a single Numerous examples within the “Future House” initi- project it presents an experimental and integrated ative show best practices for energy efficient build- approach to energy efficiency and urban develop- ings either through retrofitting the existing ones or ment. As a municipal policy it could be adapted to any via new investments. specific site. Its methodology could be implemented anywhere, but to be sustainable it requires political In terms of renewable energy sources a bottom-up will and consequence. It is based on a business-based approach was applied in Bottrop – decentralized Research and Development approach but is imple- energy systems in households/single buildings are mented at the municipal level and for non-profit integrated into a district and city network. Electric motives: i.e. improving municipal development policy. vehicles (cars, scooters) and car sharing initiatives were introduced for the inhabitants and the visitors InnovationCity Ruhr is a citizen-facing project with to improve public transport and environment-friendly transparent participation schemes that enhance mobility in the city. Installing LED street lighting, co-determination and social participation in its greening the façades and roofs of the buildings with decision-making processes. The initiative was climbing plants or living wall systems and utilizing preceded by collecting 20,000 signatures of citizens rainwater for street cleaning machines are the exam- support to the InnovationCity idea. In 2013 work- ples of small-scale green investments improving the shops were held in the town so that the inhabitants functionality of municipal infrastructure, as well as could exchange their ideas and confront experts, living conditions. entrepreneurs and non-profit associations. Further- more, it was also possible to submit suggestions and ideas on the Master plan online or via the local Centre for Information and Advice.

10 “You ask about the Master plan, we answer!”, InnovationCity Ruhr, Modellstadt Bottrop, www.icruhr.de/index.php?id=277&L=1 12 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

4. Greece, the empire of wind and sun

Due to its unique geographical location Greece has a the sector were lost. The country promised its inter- great potential to succeed in energy transition. Solar national lenders – the European Union, the Euro- power granted by the climate and wind power avail- pean Central Bank and the International Mone- able thanks to the long coastline are good starting tary Fund – that it would completely eliminate the points. In terms of energy policy, however, Greece deficit of the Renewable Energy Sources Fund by the has not yet made much use of its assets. The country end of 2014. The contribution of solar photo-voltaic relies mostly on imported oil and national lignite energy producers was the biggest of all renewable sector – it is the 7th largest lignite producer in the power producers. Moreover, already in 2011 a brave world11. The costs of energy are very high, as it has to plan of constructing the world’s biggest solar farm, be redistributed and transferred to the Greek islands “Helios Project” (promising even 60,000 new jobs) dependent on fossil fuel energy. Nearly two thirds of was announced, however its realization was jeop- domestic energy supply comes from abroad, which ardized by deepening crisis14. For the same reason a exceeds the EU average. Nevertheless, Greece has great retrofitting project called “Building the Future”, set an ambitious target to generate nearly 40% of its launched in 2012 to renovate nearly 1 million build- electricity production through renewables by 202012. ings in Greece, was down-sized. Privatization is among the anti-crisis measures that Greece agreed on with the European institutions. It should also apply Greek energy policy in times of crisis to Greek energy policy, but the investors are still not Already in 2004 a pilot project was launched within convinced to choose Greece as the country struggles the bioclimatic challenge – the Greek School Build- with budgetary control, austerity measures, cutting ings Organization (SBO) decided to use renew- subsidies, the incentives for developers of renewa- able energy sources in school buildings by installing bles, as well as volatile energy policy of succeeding photo-voltaic systems13. A step was taken towards governments. diversifying the Greek energy market by liberaliza- tion and breaking the monopoly of the state-owned public power corporation. Unfortunately, lack of Energy poverty genuine consequence and power imbalances led to One of the dramatic outcomes of the crisis was its turbulence. First, huge investments in solar power impact on the well-being of Greek households. installations were made, as they proved the highest Massive long-term unemployment raised the threat rates of return. Then, due to the market overheating of poverty for many Greek families. Spending on combined with crisis strikes one third of the jobs in energy needs lowered – it was estimated that three

11 “Lignite in the Greek energy system. Facts and challenges”, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Greece, Thessaloniki 2015, https://gr.boell.org/sites/default/files/hbsgr_ lignitis_lignite_2015.pdf 12 “Powering Growth in the Energy Sector”, Enterprise Greece S.A., The official Investment and Trade Promotion Agency of Greece, www.enterprisegreece.gov.gr/default.asp?pid=48 13 Patargias P., Kalianou A., Galanis C., Vassilopoulou M., Drosou M., Protogeropoulos Ch., 2007, School Buildings in Greece: The Bioclimatic Challenge and a Photovoltaic Pilot Project, PEB Exchange 2007/9 , OECD, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5l4fl51n7f9v.pdf?expires=1450778426&id=id& accname=guest&checksum=C9000B779A6A68A5CC068AD44A31EA6B 14 Coats Ch. “What Happened To Greece’s Solar Surge”, Forbes, 17 May 2013, www.forbes.com/sites/christophercoats/2013/05/17/what-happened-to- greeces-solar-surge Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 13

in five households fell below the energy poverty The potential for growth line15. Constant decreases in final energy consump- Despite economic crisis, a large number of solar tion can be observed from 2008 onwards – it dropped panels were installed in the last few years. Moreover, by 30% in total16. Special social electricity tariffs and 77% of renewable energy in Greece is predicted to limited free-of-charge electricity supplies were intro- come from wind energy in 2020. There is also a great duced to customers fulfilling the criteria (low income number of geo-thermal resources in Greece that are or special needs), but the data prove that numbers not yet fully realized for national energy production of unpaid bills rose dramatically in the years of crisis, while hydro power is also undertilized. In terms of posing a threat to the financial liquidity of Greek waste management, landfill is the only waste treat- public energy provider and thus adding to the crisis ment practiced whereas urban waste-to-energy of public finances in Greece17. programs could provide electricity. Because of the climate, heating is not the only concern of the Greek citizens. Cooling the premises in summer months is a challenge. Thus, energy efficiency and retrofitting could play an important role in improving housing conditions and lowering energy expenses.

15 “How to end Energy Poverty? Scrutinity of Current EU and Member States Instruments. Study for the ITRE Commitee”, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, IP/A/ITRE/2014-06 , PE 563.472, October 2015, p. 21, www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2015/563472/IPOL_BRI(2015)563472_EN.pdf; Grigoriou T., “Greek crisis: What the financial crash and years of austerity did to Greece’s energy”, Europe’s Carbon Conundrum, July 2015, http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/07/02/comment-shell-and-us-arctic-drillingregulators-are-too- close-for-comfort/ 16 Greece statistics, International Energy Agency, Policies and Measures, Renewable Energy, www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewableenergy/? country=Greece 17 Dagoumas A., Kitsios F., “Assesing the impact of economic crisis on energy poverty in Greece”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.02.004 14 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

5. Thessaloniki: a potential energy self sufficiency

Thessaloniki is the second biggest city in Greece and The city of Thessaloniki seeks to launch effective the capital of Central Makedonia region. The munic- sustainable development policies at the local level. ipality of Thessaloniki itself isn’t big, reaching only It is a member of Energy Cities Network and was ca. 350,000 inhabitants. The greater Urban Area of chosen to join “100 resilient cities” project funded by Thessaloniki consists of seven self-governing units the Rockefeller Foundation. (six municipalities and one community), which with a population of nearly 800,000 are a core of a In 2006 the Association of Local Authorities of greater Thessaloniki Metropolitan Area, the largest Greater Thessaloniki launched a big waste manage- urban area consisting of 14 units. With a popula- ment project of a biogas power plant. Public elec- tion reaching more than 1m inhabitants, this Metro- tricity provider buys the energy and transfers it to politan Area is commonly referred to as the city of the national grid19. Despite a deep economic reces- Thessaloniki. sion and the volatile political situation at the national level, Thessaloniki continues to invest in green policy. Local governments in Greece have less competences A “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan” (SUMP) was to decide about issues important to the local commu- launched to improve public transport, decrease car nities, i.e. spatial planning, nature preservation, or traffic and pollution emissions in the city20. Moreover, social policy measures. They lack fiscal sovereignty simulations prove that full exploitation of the wind as well as autonomous local legislation asides from and solar potential in the main Metropolitan Area exceptional cases. A diverse status of Greek local of Thessaloniki could comprehensively cover local administration was granted by so called “Kallikratis electricity needs21. The implementation of energy Plan” – due to significant dispersion of settlement transition in Thessaloniki could revitalize the local structure, varying from low populated and spatially economy: not only political will but also favorable isolated islands to agglomeration regions of Athens spatial and climate conditions could be effectively and Thessaloniki18. These entities are granted more utilized. decision sovereignty and local competences.

18 Hlepas N. K., 2014, Struktur griechischer Kommunen, Kooperationsstelle beim Beauftragten für die Deutsch-Griechische Versammlung, Berlin 2014. 19 “Renewable Energy in Thessaloniki – Greater Thessaloniki, Greece”, Energie-Cités, 2008, www.energy-cities.eu/db/thessaloniki_575_en.pdf 20 Mourey Th., 2015, Monitoring and evaluation at the very core of Thessaloniki’s SUMP (Greece), European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, www.eltis.org/resources/videos/thessaloniki-sustainableurban-mobility-planning-times-crisis-greece#sthash.oSKdNuOV.dpuf 21 Nikolaou K., Koutsoumaraki V., “The potential of renewable energy sources in Thessaloniki metropolitan area”, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas – CERTH, Thessaloniki 2009, http://library.certh.gr/libfiles/PDF/EL-PAPYR-4778-THE-POTENTIAL-by-NIKOLAOU-in-3RD-SYN-PR-XHM-BA-THESS-25- 27-SEP-2009-PP-1-6.pdf Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 15

6. Bottrop – Thessaloniki Workshop

A pilot project involving the municipalities of Bottrop energy). In the second part, local municipalities were and Thessaloniki was initiated by a multi-stake- introduced with a special focus on implemented local holder workshop, that took place in Berlin, on 11 energy policies and approaches to the challenges of and 12 November, 2015, as part of the Advocate energy transition. In the third part, based on newly Europe idea challenge. The event hosted 35 partici- gathered knowledge and exchanged experiences, pants: representatives of local authorities, organized simultaneous workshops started, discussing possible civil society, the business sector and experts. The inspirations for Bottrop and Thessaloniki. The key experiences of the HUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Govern- stakeholders identified “good practice” examples ance Platform, which are based on several years of to transfer knowledge between the communities – Trialogs (a format for multi-stakeholder meetings), irrelevant of the country-specific setting and current have shown that the inclusion and confrontation of economic situation. a variety of perspectives, as well as the readiness of arguing in favor of commonly acceptable solutions, dissolves blockades and opens common corridors of win-win-solutions. A local approach has the big benefit of direct communication and has many positive outcomes for municipal investments of smaller scale energy transition projects: it allows planned enterprises to be more effective and customized as well as letting them feel a strong sense of ownership over their strategies and contributing to international partnerships that rebuild European integration.

The workshop was divided into three parts. The first session looked at possible approaches to stimulate local green growth. As the energy transition requires 6.1 Groupwork Results infrastructural investments based on research and The major results proved there are different dimen- development activities, the key challenges of munici- sions of energy transition at the local level. Improving palities concern financing strategies. Therefore, two living conditions in urban settlements through presentations on financing options laid the founda- infrastructure modernization is the first. A necessity tion for discussions: a representative of the European to develop integrated, systemic approach towards Investment Bank presented potential opportunities energy transition in terms of matching education of investment funding. Then the green business asso- and training systems with the challenges of rising ciation of B.A.U.M. e.V. (Bundesdeutscher Arbeits “green” labor markets is another, more universal kreis für Umweltbewusstes Management) introduced challenge. the “Regional Energy Efficiency Collectives” project (Regionale EnergieEffizienz Genossenschaften, The general conclusion identified Energiewende as a REEG) as an example of alternative energy transition potential inspiration for local development strategies financing model at the local level – focused on energy in Europe. Moreover, it could serve as a model for democracy and so called Bürgerenergie (citizens’ encouraging the citizens to engage and shape their 16 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

local environment in European trans-border coopera- living standards due to crisis-related unemployment tion. The idea of energy democracy and local activism and stagnation, the positive outcomes of urban rede- for common good purposes can be well developed velopment inspired by the Bottrop model could be within the framework of energy transition policies multiplied by reducing social marginalization and at the local level. Learning from the experiences of stigmatization of notorious neighborhoods. others is an added value. b) Promoting the REEG idea (Regional Cooperatives Launching energy transition projects can serve as a for Energy Efficiency) in Thessaloniki common platform for linking European municipali- Germany has the highest percentage of registered ties together. It has the capacity not only to develop energy cooperatives in Europe. Their purpose is inde- sustainable energy models, create jobs, but also pendent and cheap energy production from renew- improve understanding of the European Union’s able energy sources at the local level. Energy co-ops value. Such a successful collaboration could also be are run by citizens mostly for their own needs. That an example on a European scale for overcoming polit- approach, however, ignored the energy efficiency ical crisis through committing to a common cause at measures. Thus, the popularity of energy co-ops the local level. The workshop talks were held under inspired B.A.U.M. to launch similar projects focused Chatham House rules. on retrofitting. Energy Cooperatives 2.0 are regional energy efficiency cooperatives (REEG) based on social funding for retrofitting projects. In their framework, 6.2 Possible fields of cooperation: three financial instruments were launched: B.A.U.M. good practice transfer Future Funds (promoting the investments in energy During the group-work activities the participants efficiency in households); Energy Saving Contracting identified possible paths of cooperation, focusing on (providing energy saving equipment/techniques to infrastructural development and the enhancement reduce energy costs in households); and Social Busi- of citizen participation in the local decision-making ness Cooperatives (offering sub-ordinated loans processes. The workshop proved there is political will and investing in energy efficiency for customers). to cooperate at the local level. Further possible coop- Members get a fixed interest rate of return. Banks eration plans were sketched: are not needed to finance these projects, they are based on individual contributions within the coop- a) Energy efficiency measures in public buildings erative. In exchange, the customers receive 10% off in Thessaloniki the energy bills. Facing the crisis situation of distrust Retrofitting does not only improve infrastructural and instability in financial markets – as is happening performance but also contributes to balancing public in Greece – the self-governance and self-sufficiency spending by significantly lowering the costs of main- of co-ops could be a solution for many households tenance. Energy efficiency measures could there- to improve their financial and housing situations. fore be introduced in public buildings of Thessaloniki The REEG know-how would have to be adapted to (hospitals, schools, municipal facilities and public country specific level, however the overall idea of transport) to improve the city’s budget. Moreover, collective financing of joint investments for their own energy efficiency measures could also be introduced purposes would remain the same. in housing areas (residential buildings), especially in non-privileged neighborhoods, where problems like c) Study visits and networking energy poverty often occur. In the poorer neighbor- Local communities can help each other by trans- hoods of Thessaloniki that suffer from aggravating ferring knowledge and developing evidence-based Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 17

local policies. To support that process, further Greek- young people. The awareness of green topics – German Trialog workshops should be launched. climate change and energy efficiency – is insuffi- Through interactions between the communities and cient. Green job opportunities coming from struc- their stakeholders, and by planning and negotiating tural changes are also not commonly recognized local policies, the priorities of local energy transition in social and economical terms. Career orienta- schemes could be identified. Study visits of the Greek tion is a very important aspect to make young stakeholders to the chosen “good practice providers” people aware that the green economy provides in Germany and return visits of the German stake- job opportunities – in both Greece and Germany. holders to Greece should follow. Implementing a Introducing young people to professions linked to “hands-on” approach in planning investments can energy transition, illustrated by the examples of inspire the local stakeholders to develop the most successful transformation (like in Bottrop) could functional solutions with the lowest risks. Learning change this. about the challenges of renewable energy from each other could positively influence the final result of the • “Living buildings” project: knowledge transfer between the cities. In Bottrop students learn how to retrofit buildings in a “hands-on” manner through exer- d) Educational initiatives cises in “Living buildings” – smart buildings with • Awareness-raising energy systems open for student practices. On the Energy efficiency is not only about renovating contrary, the Greek structures lack practical prep- buildings. It refers to consumption patterns, aration. A “Living building” – as an educational motivating people to participate in projects and tool for awareness-raising in general public and bringing other stakeholders into the project to for actual training – could be founded in Thessa- take ownership. It’s important to bring different loniki to serve the educational needs of schools generations together as education is not only for and universities. Explaining energy efficiency to 18 Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report

the public can be more successful with a tangible There are high-quality universities and technical example: an energy efficient hotel, school or other colleges for engineers in Greece but these are not public building open for demonstration. complemented by appropriate vocational training programs. The “know-how” is there, but not when • Vocational training it comes to training craftspeople like electricians In terms of vocational training a lot could be or construction workers. Thus, trainers should be learned from Bottrop and Germany, where the trained and various involved institutions – like dual education system complements theoret- trade unions, companies, local authorities – should ical training with practical experience in compa- work together to create a network of internship nies. There should be no false hopes, however, on opportunities. Students could participate in voca- implementing the dual education program outside tional training projects by case study approach, i.e. Germany. It has its own problems and it relies giving retrofitting advice from house to house – on cooperation between companies, employer’s like it was done in Bottrop – or by joining study associations and trade unions. The German system visits to observe good practice examples in other has some aspects that cannot be quickly exported. cities and learn through the “hands-on” approach. Instead, a complex system has to be developed in Greece – to address the Greek context specifically, instead of being a carelessly exported German system. Growth Initiative: municipalities for a strong Europe / Good practice exchange between Bottrop and Thessaloniki / Workshop report 19

Conclusions

Even though the two municipalities – Bottrop and Implementing an energy transition model inspired Thessaloniki – differ by size, geopolitical location and by Bottrop in Thessaloniki is possible – but the budg- historical paths of development, there is a certain etary constraints at the national level are a barrier similarity in terms of challenges they face. Just like for local development. Thus, European intervention Thessaloniki now, Bottrop was a city struggling with is needed to reverse this course of events. The EU economic crisis resulting from industrial transfor- institutions could come up with a solution by acti- mation and consequent social problems like unem- vating the funds, e.g. from the Jean-Claude Juncker’s ployment, risk of poverty, social marginalization, Investment Plan for Europe or other tools of the challenges related to influx of immigrants and their European Investment Bank (EIB), to kick-start inno- integration. Unlike Thessaloniki, however, it was a vative investments in renewable energy sources and small city, with few opportunities to invest. Thessa- energy efficiency. This new industry branch could loniki, just as in the whole of Greece, is currently also serve the local community by improving living condi- experiencing investments deficit due to the global tions (ending energy poverty, retrofitting the housing economic crisis: budgetary control over Greece, banks estates, decreasing pollution), as well as providing reluctance to take on risk, and finally the indebted jobs and stimulating the local economy, what is very public sector and austerity measures limiting public much needed nowadays in Greece. The “fair transfor- spending. Thus, in both cities developing employ- mation” of Bottrop would also not have succeeded ment opportunities, especially for young people is a without the support of regional and national insti- pressing problem. tutions. There must be public funds involved to encourage investors to engage. Thus, seeking the The university in Thessaloniki has a deep expertise sympathy of the EIB to support low risk investments on the topic of energy systems, however there are is crucial. problems with disseminating this knowledge and marketing the innovative solutions by finding investors. Vocational training programs are also insuf- ficient. On the contrary, in Ruhrgebiet, there was no long tradition of academic research but making sustainability a common vision for the development resulted in redirecting public investments such as education and training to fit the new economic profile of the region. Since 2009 Bottrop is home to a university of applied science (Fachhochschule) focused on engineering, with a very strong commitment to vocational training, research and development, as well as cooperation with the business sector. Private capital to invest in projects had to be actively sought, bringing mutual benefits to the municipality, as well as the companies involved. Contact:

HUMBOLDT-VIADRINA Governance Platform gGmbH Pariser Platz 6 10117 Berlin

Phone: +49 30 2007 6166 Email: [email protected] Website: www.governance-platform.org Twitter: @4GGovernance

Author: Maria Skóra / Front cover graphic design: Michael Meissner / Photographs: Jens Schicke / January 2016, Berlin