Walking the innovation path with Paula Kivimaa

Recently, we had opportunity to speak with Paula Kivimaa – a Research Professor in Climate and Society in the Finnish Environment Institute Syke. She is an internationally renowned scholar in sustainability transitions, with over 20-year research experience on innovations, public policy, climate change, energy and mobility. Kivimaa’s recent and ongoing work is oriented to how security and geopolitics tie into innovation policy and energy transitions.

Your recent publication delves into the synergies and tensions between Open Strategic Autonomy (OSA) and the energy transition. Could you elaborate on your key findings and how they can inform the design of decarbonisation efforts at the territorial level within the EU?

Firstly, I think the positive aspect is that there are many potential synergies between the energy transition and Open Strategic Autonomy (OSA) because the transition reduces our dependency on fossil fuels, and hence dependence on resources from outside the EU. If we consider the energy transition not only as the deployment of renewable energy and electrification, but also as incorporating energy efficiency into a circular economy, addressing the question of material dependencies, then by reducing material and energy use, we basically improve our strategic autonomy by needing fewer resources from outside Europe.

The second point is that public servants in the European Commission, and probably even more so policymakers at the local level, do not really understand what Open Strategic Autonomy means for different policies and sectors, because it combines the concepts of openness and autonomy, which can be somewhat confusing. In our study, we found that many policymakers see that policies like the Net Zero Industries Act, the Critical Raw Materials Act, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism actually try to advance both the energy transition and strategic autonomy, however, there is some doubt how effective they will be in implementation.

I think the key thing for successful decarbonisation is to be aware of the different policy objectives and to find ways to identify synergies and reduce tensions. This is also interesting at the territorial level, because what we are discussing is strategic autonomy at the European level as a whole – not only at a national level or solely at the territorial level. Of course, we also need to consider territorial questions, because we have seen how different crises can create bottlenecks in energy supplies.

In this sense, it is about thinking about Europe as a whole and how it functions as a system, while at the same time having a certain degree of preparedness at the territorial level, so that our energy sources do not all come from third countries. We need a degree of self-sufficiency in regions, with an overall European design in mind. 

As we embark on a new experimentation journey focused on Preparedness, we would appreciate your expertise on the benefits of integrating transformative innovation, sustainability transitions, and OSA. What challenges do you anticipate arising from this intersection, and how can they be addressed?

Preparedness is interpreted differently across various member states, with a notable distinction between the northeast and southwest regions. The latter recognises preparedness not only in terms of traditional security but also in relation to environmental security risks and climate change, making it easier to establish a link to sustainability and transformative innovation in these southwest countries. For instance, Spain experienced the DANA flood, and Greece has faced forest fires, which has led to the inclusion of climate security as a component of preparedness. In contrast, the northern and eastern parts of the EU, faced with the Russian threat, tend to prioritise hard security, which may lead to a more short-term focus on boosting military preparedness, potentially at the expense of long-term sustainability.

Our approach aims to identify synergies between defence and sustainability, even in these regions. An interesting example is nature restoration, which has been found to advance sustainability while also making border areas more difficult to traverse for military forces. Another common example is the energy transition, where there is a growing recognition of the need to build a new energy system that is resilient to various risks, including climate-related hazards and intentional attacks. I believe that significant transformative innovation is currently underway in these areas. When discussing the energy transition, we are no longer solely focusing on the expansion of wind and solar power, but also on the broader process of electrification, which is witnessing numerous new developments.

Given the strategic implications of technology sovereignty and OSA, these concepts are often associated with top-down governance. However, it is essential to involve territories in shaping OSA policy approaches at the local level. How can this be achieved, and what role can local territories play in contributing to the development of OSA policies?

I believe it is essential to include regions in the discussion, as the current overall strategies, such as the Competitiveness Compass, the Clean Industrial Deal, and the Preparedness Union Strategy, provide a framework for outlining Open Strategic Autonomy (OSA). 

The work done under the Preparatory Action, which involves bringing in practical examples from regions, highlights the diversity of needs and solutions. This diversity implies that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be effective, and instead, tailored solutions may be required for different territories.

Although I think that certain solutions, such as energy efficiency and circular economy, can be beneficial and applied in any territory, the specific implementation may vary. For instance, the type of energy solution that is most suitable can differ from one region to another, with some areas being more suited to solar power, others to wind power, and others to nuclear energy.

Recognising this diversity while maintaining a common vision is crucial.

We would like to thank Paula Kivimaa for her insights.