Keynote for 1st Catalan Congress on Energy Poverty 3rd November 2016
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•152 views
Dr Harriet Thomson, 'Fuel poverty: a common problem across the EU'.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (12)
Similar to Keynote for 1st Catalan Congress on Energy Poverty 3rd November 2016
Similar to Keynote for 1st Catalan Congress on Energy Poverty 3rd November 2016 (20)
More from Harriet Thomson
More from Harriet Thomson (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (16)
Keynote for 1st Catalan Congress on Energy Poverty 3rd November 2016
- 1. Fuel poverty: a common problem across the EU Dr Harriet Thomson Comparteix a les xarxes: TW @CongresPE #pobresaenergetica
- 2. My introduction to energy poverty…
- 4. Circle of risk Adapted from Liddell and Guiney (2015)
- 5. “People are giving back items that need to be cooked because they can’t afford the electricity or gas.” Chris Mould, Trussell Trust (UK) •5.5 million energy poor households in the UK in 2009
- 6. Masters and PhD research on pan-EU fuel poverty Mixed-methods research at the University of York: 1.Qualitative analysis of national and EU policy documents to ‘qualify’ fuel poverty 2.Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of statistical datasets to ‘quantify’ fuel poverty Overall aim = create a typology of fuel poverty in the EU
- 7. EU Fuel Poverty Network Founded in 2011 to address the lack of networking channels: www.fuelpoverty.eu •Free membership scheme •Guest blog articles •350+ items in resource archive •New discussion forums •~24,000 global visitors Coordinators: •Harriet Thomson •Raúl Castaño De la Rosa •Rhionna Mackay •Irene Morris
- 8. Policy analysis findings • Limited EU policy specifically addressed at fuel poverty • No pan-EU definition and only 4 countries have a definition • Varied protection of ‘vulnerable consumers’ within gas and electricity markets • Few countries recognise the barriers to household energy efficiency improvements However, the EU is starting to take the issue more seriously, and recently funded two studies on vulnerable consumers and energy poverty indicators.
- 9. Secondary data analysis • Micro data from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions 2007-2011 • Supplementary Eurostat data on heating degree days, excess winter mortality, energy prices, and income inequality Three key proxy indicators were used to measure energy poverty 1. Ability to afford to keep the home warm 2. Leaking roof, damp, and/or rot in the home 3. Arrears on utility bills within the last 12 months
- 10. New index of pan-EU energy poverty • Previous research has combined indicators at the country-level to produce single composite scores (Healy & Clinch, 2002; Thomson & Snell, 2013) • Main output of PhD was the Core EU-SILC Index of Fuel Poverty (CIFP) • CIFP is a summative index that adds up the number of EU-SILC indicators reported • First pan-EU household-level index of energy poverty severity
- 11. Country Number of indicators reported (% of households) One Two Three Austria 15.6 2.6 0.3 Belgium 20.2 4.0 0.6 Bulgaria 42.8 25.3 6.4 Cyprus 30.4 15.2 3.0 Czech Republic 15.5 2.4 0.3 Denmark 10.5 1.2 0.1 Estonia 22.4 3.8 0.6 Finland 10.4 0.9 0.1 France 15.8 3.4 0.7 Germany 15.4 2.7 0.5 Greece 26.8 8.8 2.5 Hungary 23.2 10.5 3.3 Ireland 19.4 4.8 0.8 Italy 23.2 6.3 1.6 Latvia 31.7 13.5 3.0 Lithuania 31.3 9.8 1.9 Luxembourg 16.4 0.8 0.0 Malta 22.1 4.8 0.3 Netherlands 16.3 1.6 0.2 Poland 22.2 7.6 2.3 Portugal 32.6 11.2 1.2 Romania 29.1 11.6 4.6 Slovakia 15.1 2.1 0.5 Slovenia 32.1 9.9 1.4 Spain 24.0 4.2 0.5 Sweden 11.1 1.2 0.1 United Kingdom 16.5 3.6 0.5
- 12. 2010 Equal 2010 Severity Finland 1 1 Denmark 2 2 Sweden 3 3 Luxembourg 4 4 Slovakia 5 6 Netherlands 6 5 Czechia 7 7 Austria 8 8 Germany 9 9 France 10 10 UK 11 11 Belgium 12 12 Ireland 13 13 Estonia 14 14 Malta 15 15 Spain 16 16 Italy 17 17 Poland 18 18 Hungary 19 20 Greece 20 19 Lithuania 21 22 Slovenia 22 21 Portugal 23 23 Romania 24 24 Latvia 25 25 Cyprus 26 26 Bulgaria 27 27 Key: a = % of households reporting 1 indicator b = % of households reporting 2 indicators c = % of households reporting 3 indicators Scenario 1 - Equal weighting: 0.3333 a + 0.3333 b + 0.3333 c Scenario 2 - Severity weighting: 0.1667 a + 0.3333 b + 0.5000 c • The CIFP has been compared with official UK measures, and shows good face validity, particularly with the 10% definition • Positive association between income poverty and CIFP, with a strong income disparity: Number of CIFP indicators Median disposable household income (EU27) 0 €24,245.00 1 €17,000.00 2 €10,800.00 3 €8,073.00 Core EU-SILC Index of Fuel Poverty (CIFP)
- 13. Regions at risk • 52 million + households in EU27 (Thomson, 2015) • Reflects existing regional structural inequalities (Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero, 2015) • Southern, Central and Eastern Europe most at risk of energy poverty 2010 Equal 2010 Severity Finland 1 1 Denmark 2 2 Sweden 3 3 Luxembourg 4 4 Slovakia 5 6 Netherlands 6 5 Czechia 7 7 Austria 8 8 Germany 9 9 France 10 10 UK 11 11 Belgium 12 12 Ireland 13 13 Estonia 14 14 Malta 15 15 Spain 16 16 Italy 17 17 Poland 18 18 Hungary 19 20 Greece 20 19 Lithuania 21 22 Slovenia 22 21 Portugal 23 23 Romania 24 24 Latvia 25 25 Cyprus 26 26 Bulgaria 27 27
- 14. Regions at risk Southern Europe: •Whilst more temperate, indoor heating is required at various points throughout the year •Poor energy efficiency standards •Challenging macroeconomic circumstances and prolonged fiscal austerity = real loss of household income & cuts in financing for energy-related infrastructure •High levels of dependence on imported energy in island states of Cyprus and Malta •Growing electrification for indoor cooling and appliances 2010 Equal 2010 Severity Finland 1 1 Denmark 2 2 Sweden 3 3 Luxembourg 4 4 Slovakia 5 6 Netherlands 6 5 Czechia 7 7 Austria 8 8 Germany 9 9 France 10 10 UK 11 11 Belgium 12 12 Ireland 13 13 Estonia 14 14 Malta 15 15 Spain 16 16 Italy 17 17 Poland 18 18 Hungary 19 20 Greece 20 19 Lithuania 21 22 Slovenia 22 21 Portugal 23 23 Romania 24 24 Latvia 25 25 Cyprus 26 26 Bulgaria 27 27
- 15. Regions at risk Central and Eastern Europe: •Demise of communism brought about rapid and substantial restructuring to move towards a market- based economy •Measures included fiscal austerity, widespread privatisation, and deregulation of the economy •Income inequalities and decreased purchasing power •Very poor housing stock quality •Liberalisation of energy markets resulted in removal of subsidies but without corresponding safety nets •Significant increases in the cost of heating and other energy services •Issues of non-payment of utility bills 2010 Equal 2010 Severity Finland 1 1 Denmark 2 2 Sweden 3 3 Luxembourg 4 4 Slovakia 5 6 Netherlands 6 5 Czechia 7 7 Austria 8 8 Germany 9 9 France 10 10 UK 11 11 Belgium 12 12 Ireland 13 13 Estonia 14 14 Malta 15 15 Spain 16 16 Italy 17 17 Poland 18 18 Hungary 19 20 Greece 20 19 Lithuania 21 22 Slovenia 22 21 Portugal 23 23 Romania 24 24 Latvia 25 25 Cyprus 26 26 Bulgaria 27 27
- 16. The EVALUATE project Energy Vulnerability and Urban Transitions in Europe (EVALUATE) www.urban- energy.org •Five-year European Research Council funded project •Aims to establish the driving forces of urban energy poverty in the post-socialist states of Eastern and Central Europe •Multi-scalar: institutions, households, and buildings •Multi-methods: interviews, energy diaries, local surveys, statistical modelling of national datasets, and more
- 17. EVALUATE: An urban and neighbourhood level approach • Focusing on dynamics within two inner-city neighbourhoods across four cities • Exploring national and city-level processes • Local support (Gdansk University, Charles University, CEU, CUW, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University)
- 18. Pathways to energy vulnerability: key themes • Energy efficiency – very poor condition of some buildings • Access – poor availability of appropriate energy carriers • Affordability - dynamics of household incomes and energy costs • Flexibility (and suitability) – of heating systems and built environment • Needs – mismatch between energy needs and available energy services • Practices – ways of using energy in the home, and accessing support programmes
- 19. Multiple and new vulnerabilities A range of household typologies: •Short-term residents – often renters and in early adulthood •Long-term under-occupying residents – often owner-occupiers •Working age familities – often in full employment and with school aged children •Households in poor quality and/or expensive housing – but highly educated
- 20. Burden of energy costs
- 21. Importance of summer cooling
- 22. Social and cultural dimensions • Many participants did not know what ‘energy poverty’ was, and did not talk about it with friends • ‘Struggling’ considered a private, and perhaps shameful, issue • Links to wider discourses around individual responsibility and the ‘undeserving poor During an interview in Prague, 2016
- 23. Missing links…
- 24. Missing links… Collaboration •Need to break down silos in research, policy and practice •More effective ways of co-producing knowledge and transferring ideas across Europe Research •A more holistic view of energy poverty – recognising specific energy needs and all energy services (especially cooling) •Better quality data and indicators to ehance our understanding of energy poverty •Increase technical and scientific capacity Decision-making •Existing definitions are inadequate •Issue of policy marginalisation of groups not traditionally considered ‘vulnerable’ •Money and political will! Solution: the European Commission’s EU Energy Poverty Observatory due to launch in 2017?
- 25. Thank youThank you www.urban-energy.org |www.urban-energy.org | www.fuelpoverty.euwww.fuelpoverty.eu @harrimus @stefanbuzar @curemanchester
- 26. Gràcies per la vostra assistència www.congrespobresaenergetica.cat Esdeveniment organitzat per
Editor's Notes
- Hello everyone, it is a great pleasure to join you today to talk about a topic we have been hearing about for many years now. My name is Harriet Thomson and I am a researcher at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, and I am also the founder of the EU Fuel Poverty Network.
- I first started working in the field of energy poverty 7 years ago, when I was project managing a government grant scheme that provided certain low-income households with free renewable energy systems. At the beginning of this project, I visited one of the success stories, an elderly woman who had received a combined ground source heat pump and solar PV system, alongside new loft insulation. This meant that her heating and hot water was almost free, and her electricity bills were much smaller. She spoke enthusiastically about the difference this had made to her quality of life, she felt happier, she was comfortable, she no longer felt ashamed to have visitors in her home, and above all, she no longer worried about her energy costs and receiving the next bill in the post. It was remarkable to me how much of a difference this project had made, for what was a relatively small financial investment by the government.
- During this project I came to learn about the concept of energy poverty. The fact it means living in difficult housing conditions, constantly worrying about balancing household budgets, not participating fully in society, experiencing a deterioration in physical health and well-being, and in many cases, feeling helpless and unable to change your situation.
- Liddell and Guiney, academics from Northern Ireland, talk about the circle of risk associated with energy poverty, which helps to illustrate the trade-offs and choices people are forced to make, and the psychological impact of that burden. They show that the stress associated with living in energy poverty leads to changes in your mood, which impairs your immune, cardiovascular and hormonal function. In turn this can lead to poorer physical health and further increased stress. At this point, some people turn to coping behaviours such as smoking, drinking alcohol and/or overeating, which reduces the amount of disposable income a person may have, thus increasing their vulnerability to energy poverty.
- Later, I learnt that Trussell Trust in the UK, which operates emergency food banks, has had clients refuse to take basic items such as rice, pasta, and tinned tomatoes because they had too little credit in the electricity meter to cook them, or had been cut off by their gas supplier. In response Trussell Trust has had to develop a ‘cold box’ food parcel containing three days' worth of mainly tinned groceries that can be prepared without the need for heating or hot water. In that year in the UK alone 5.5 million households were officially classed as energy poor by the government. I found it shocking that this condition could exist in the modern day, and that it was so widespread, causing so much misery.
- So I started researching the issue, on a pan-European scale, to understand if this issue was pervasive across Europe, and what was being done to tackle it. This was the topic of both my masters and PhD programmes at the University of York. I used multiple methods in my work. Firstly, I conducted extensive analysis of policy documents from Member States and EU institutions. I wanted to understand how fuel poverty and energy poverty were conceptualised across the EU and what protection was in place. I also conducted statistical analysis of national datasets to attempt to quantify the problem. Overall, my aim was create a typology of fuel poverty in the EU to address the significant gaps in knowledge.
- However, during my masters degree I encountered difficulties in connecting with people researching fuel poverty in different countries, as the research community was small and fragmented. To overcome this challenge, I emailed all the people I could find that were involved with fuel poverty research and practical action all over Europe, asking them to contribute articles and case studies for a new website. Since 2011 the EU Fuel Poverty Network has grown to be the one of the leading online portals for fuel poverty, and has a wide range of features, including a free membership scheme, over 350 articles in our resource library, and new discussion forums. We have had around 24,000 visitors from across the world, and there is evidence that the website is influencing decision makers, with one Member of the European Parliament quoting the EU Fuel Poverty Network in a question to the European Commission. The team behind the website has also expanded in recent years, and I am now helped out by my fantastic colleagues Raul, Rhionna and Irene.
- So to return to my research. Among the main findings from my policy analysis were that there is very little European policy that directly addresses the problem of energy poverty. In terms of definitions, there is no pan-EU definition and only 4 countries have one. At the Member State level, I found varying levels of protection for vulnerable consumers within gas and electricity markets. I also found that very few countries recognised the financial and social barriers to household energy efficiency improvements. That being said, there has been a shift change in the EU’s thinking in recent years, and it is starting to invest heavily in tackling the problem of energy poverty via two studies, and a forthcoming observatory project.
- My quantitative work used micro data from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions from 2007 to 2011. EU-SILC is the main data used for national and pan-European level comparisons as there is no official dedicated survey of energy poverty anywhere in the EU. EU-SILC has an annual sample of around 100,000 EU households and contains three widely used indicators: self-reported assessment of ability to keep the home warm, whether the house has a leaking roof, damp and/or rot, and if the household has been in arrears on their utility bills in the last 12 months. The main criticisms are that these are indirect proxies, that thermal comfort is culturally embedded, the potential error of exclusion, and a poor level of overlap with some expenditure measures has also been found. Despite these flaws, EU SILC is the largest standardised dataset currently available at the EU level and as such is the best available data.
- At the time of my PhD the existing research had only combined indicators at the country-level to produce single composite scores. This meant the interrelation of indicators at the household-level was under-explored. In my PhD I produced the Core EU-SILC Index of Fuel Poverty, or CIFP, which is a summative index that adds up the number of EU-SILC indicators reported, with a possible range from 0 to 3. It is the first pan-EU household-level index of energy poverty severity.
- This table shows the raw national index data for 2010, with a household weight applied. There are two keys to take away from this table: 1. All countries across the EU contain households that report indicators relating to energy poverty. 2. Of the households that report indicators, a greater proportion report only one indicator, with decreasing prevalence in line with an increasing number of indicators, with no exception. Overall Bulgaria is consistently the worst performing country, whilst Finland has the lowest proportion of households reporting 1 indicator, and Luxembourg has the lowest proportion of households reporting two and three indicators. Generally the proportion of households reporting all three indicators is very low, indeed the EU average is 1%
- One of the challenges of pan-EU indexes is the amount of information, and how to present this is an easy read format. So I opted for a visual ranking system, that ranks countries according to the proportion of households experiencing 1, 2, and 3 indicators, which is then used to produce an overall rank. I have used two weighting schemes, an equal weighting scheme and a severity weighting scheme that gives a higher weight to the % of households reporting all 3 indicators. In this table, green indicates countries with a low incidence of energy poverty issues, whilst red indicates a high incidence. The index shows good face validity with the UK’s earlier official 10% definition. It also has a positive association with income poverty, with a strong income disparity between households reporting no energy poverty indicators and those reporting all three.
- Based on the index it is estimated that at least 52 million households across the EU are at risk of experiencing energy poverty, with a very uneven spatial distribution of energy vulnerability across Europe. This uneven distribution mainly reflects existing regional structural and socioeconomic inequalities between MS, with Southern, Central and Eastern Europe most at risk of energy poverty.
- Despite Southern Europe being a more temperate region, indoor heating is required at various points throughout the year - There are very poor energy efficiency standards in this area which is compounded by challenging macroeconomic circumstances. - Prolonged fiscal austerity in this region has resulted in: A real loss of household income And cuts in financing for energy-related infrastructure - There are also issues relating to the high levels of dependence on imported energy in island states of Cyprus and Malta, as well as challenges resulting from growing electrification for indoor cooling and appliances.
- - Within Central and Eastern Europe the demise of communism in this region in the late 1980s and early 1990s initiated rapid and substantial restructuring processes in order to move towards a market-based economy. - Early policy measures included widespread privatisation and deregulation of the economy, alongside the downsizing of state intervention and fiscal austerity. These systemic processes have combined to create growing energy affordability issues, decaying housing stocks, and increasingly polarised urban neighbourhoods.
- Since finishing my PhD I have started working on the EVALUATE project at the University of Manchester. This stands for Energy Vulnerability and Urban Transitions in Europe, and is a five year European Research Council funded project led by Professor Stefan Bouzarovski. It aims to establish the driving forces of urban energy poverty within Eastern and Central Europe. It is multi-scalar, and uses multiple methods, including in-depth interviewing, local household surveys, and statistical modelling of national datasets.
- The study primarily focuses on 8 urban districts within 4 ECE cities: Gdańsk (Poland), Prague (Czech Republic), Budapest (Hungary) and Skopje (Republic of Macedonia). But we are also studying energy poverty comparatively across the whole of the EU.
- Building on the energy vulnerability framework established by Bouzarovski and Petrova, we identify six pathways to energy poverty: Energy efficiency – much of the housing stock in our study areas is quite old and in poor condition, especially in low-income districts in the inner city. Energy access – concerns the poor availability of energy carriers that are appropriate to meet households needs. This issue was thought to be largely absent from city centres. The affordability of energy provision, which is determined by household incomes and the cost of fuels. The flexibility and suitability of the built environment and equipment contained within. Particular household needs can also lead to energy poverty. For example, if someone has a chronic illness and requires higher indoor temperatures and extra clothes washing. And lastly practices related to the ways of using energy in the home, and also the political recognition or knowledge about support programmes.
- We have used cluster analysis to explore the sociodemographic patterns of energy poverty for around 2,500 households, and have identified several diverse groups of people that are experiencing energy poverty, some of which challenge existing notions of vulnerability. This includes: short-term residents, containing households that are in early adulthood and rent their accommodation; and households that are highly educated, often to a tertiary level, but living in poor quality and or expensive housing. It is evident that current policy approaches, which often prioritise support for groups traditionally considered ‘vulnerable’, will fail to recognise some of the groups identified in our research. Furthermore, many of these are the targets of ongoing austerity cut backs in many European countries.
- Across all case study areas we are finding households with very high energy burdens, well above developed-world averages. This is likely to indicate increased levels of material deprivation in the home as they point to the prioritisation of energy over other essential costs. Some households are switching to traditional fuels, such as firewood, as a coping mechanism.
- In most areas, an inability to maintain adequate cooling was the most reported thermal comfort issue, rather than keeping comfortably warm. The highest overall incidence was reported in districts dominated by high-rise blocks of apartments – particularly in Prague and Budapest. Across all areas this is matched by a low availability of air conditioning systems. To date cooling services, and energy vulnerability during summer, has received little attention in energy poverty studies. Instead there has been a prioritisation of discussions on adequate heating and cold homes. Yet climate change is increasing the odds of more heat waves taking place, so further research is needed.
- Our in-depth interviews work is finding that households have not heard of the concept of energy poverty, and it is not a term they would use to describe themselves. The people we have spoken to do not talk about energy poverty issues with their friends, because struggling is considered a private issue. This relates to broader discourses around individual responsibility and the undeserving poor.
- So, what are the missing links in addressing energy poverty? We are all here because we do not think it is acceptable that thousands of people die prematurely each year to the health effects of excessively hot and cold homes, and we want people to achieve decent living standards – so how can we build on the huge amount of expertise and passion contained in this room?
- I think the key issues that are preventing us from eradicating energy poverty in Europe can be broadly categorised under the themes of collaboration, research, and decision-making. In terms of collaboration, events like this are great if they can lead to people thinking outside their particular industry and research discipline, and more importantly, if it can lead to the co-production of new knowledge that builds on existing work. In terms of research, we need to take a more holistic view of energy poverty and recognise that all energy services in the home are important, not just heating. it is also evident that poor data quality and availability is a significant barrier. At the pan-EU level we need to radically improve indicators. Improving data mechanisms would not only increase our understanding of the issue, it would also help with identifying policy synergies, and evaluating policy interventions. However, there is also a need to increase the technical and scientific capacity of people working in this field, particularly as in some instances there has been incorrect or uncritical application of energy poverty methodologies. This could be achieved by processes of training schools, discussion forums and knowledge transfer projects. As for decision-making, existing definitions of energy poverty are inadequate, being mostly inflexible and insensitive to specific energy needs and practices. Furthermore, there is a real issue of groups not traditionally considered ‘vulnerable’ being marginalised by policy design, particularly in terms of eligibility for assistance. Arguably, the biggest missing link has often been money and political will. It is therefore very exciting that the European Commission has provided funding for a new EU Energy Poverty Observatory, which is due to be launched in late 2017. This will be a 3 year project with a huge range of events and outputs, including case studies, monitoring reports, and a new interactive website where you can find the latest statistics on energy poverty. I am pleased to say that I will be involved in leading this at the University of Manchester with assistance from many people in this room. Please do follow our progress and get involved from an early stage, it would be great to have as many people as possible joining us.
- So to end, thank you very much for listening. I have left some policy briefs on the side so please do pick some up. I am looking forward to fruitful discussions over the next two days.