In the aftermath of the 1970s and subsequent oil shocks, Europe may have taken a global lead in strategies and development of renewable energies and technologies, but faces continuing hurdles in achieving its own objectives in this sector and in pulling Asia and other partners in the same direction to help deter climate change consequences.

Some 45 experts and organisers and 20 other Asian scientists gathered in the Swedish capital in a conference co-organised by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in Singapore, the International of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) in Japan and the United Nations Environment Programme and the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Swedish Institute.

It was the third in a series under the Asia-Europe Environment Forum activities organised by the ASEF and other partners. This edition also coincided with the holding of a major Euroscience gathering in Stockholm, attended by some 1600 participants and 300 journalists, including the 20 visiting Asian scientists.

In Stockholm there were varied levels of development, policies and views regarding renewable energy (RE) in both regions. A number of European participants, for example, came from countries with a history or a future in renewables and sometimes disagreed on the best approach to promote renewables. Many Asian participants, often in an earlier phase of energy development and options suggested the European debates on liberalised markets and pricing systems had little relevance to their situation where markets and competition were often nonexistent. And while Europeans debated whether to establish a global agency to promote alternative energies, one of the leading Asian voices instead urged pressure to change the policies of international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organisation and others to abandon a bias for traditional energies and to adopt a more supportive role toward renewable sources.

The problem of energy supply and options was illustrated just a few days after the conference, when China confronted by power cuts and reductions as well as climbing oil import bills, announced plans for massive development of nuclear energy in the coming years.

But there were also synergies and compatibilities between Europe and Asia that participants sought to benefit from individually and on the sidelines of the meeting and presentations. Closer cooperation was explored on individual projects and more general themes. For example, while Europe was regarded as having developed certain technologies, including and wind and bio-fuels, it was also underlined that China and Japan had taken a lead in solar energy. And the specific rich potential of certain countries in special sectors, such as Indonesian geothermal resources, was also stressed. But some cautioned about Asian developers being fixated on securing highly-sophisticated technology from industrialised partners instead of using their own.

The Bonn conference was an especially significant influence in the Stockholm deliberations since a number of participants had been involved in both and linked the work of the two meetings. The Bonn conference, it was noted in Stockholm, was marked by a global action plan of commitments and programmes by Governments and other relevant organisations in which many Asian Governments, other than China, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, as wells as India and Pakistan in South Asia, failed to propose any such activities.

A number of initial speakers in Stockholm outlined some of the fundamental challenges confronting energy demand and supply and the role of renewable energies in the range of options. Eric Usher of UNEP underlined one basic factor when he noted that although movement was visible toward what he termed “a long-term shifting to renewable energy,” one-half of the world’s households still used traditional solid fuels such as firewood. He noted new mechanisms, such as emission trading and a number of other policy options that should encourage RE and remarked that both Europe and Asia had developed certain RE sectors.

Usher and Swedish State Secretary for the Environment Krister Nilsson both commented on the surge in oil prices in different terms, with the UNEP official remarking that the price of oil could send signals to markets that would encourage RE and Nilsson noting that the oil price increase virtually wiped out the impact of development aid from donors to developing countries.

Other keynote speakers also took differing approaches to the problem. Indonesian advocate and former minister Emil Selim noted that more then 30 years after the initial Stockholm world conference on the environment, there was still a long way to go meeting its objectives. He suggested that there were a number of policies and tools in use and that they need to be integrated with other policies. Asia-Europe cooperation could be an important means of bridging the lack of infrastructure, investment and policies for RE in Asia. He was emphatic that the international financial and trade institutions needed to be extensively reformed to foster sustainable practices and even East Asia and Southeast Asia needed to review their perceptions of development. At one point he noted as an example that approximately one-third of the productive life of many women in developing countries was still spent on gathering firewood, a situation seen as in part responsible for the death of two million women a year. But he concluded that RE must be present in the industrialisation of Asia. Michael Grubb an adviser to Britain’s new Carbon Trust, which is designed to transfer funding from an energy tax to RE and energy-efficiency activities, concentrated on the UK plans. National objectives aim at reducing greenhouse carbon emissions by 60% by the end of the decade. But at another, he noted that “the history of renewables is one of dashed expectations.” He added, however, that “the price of oil is the best driver for renewable energies.”

Peter Danielsson, president of the European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF), told the gathering that such resources and even solar energy alone could meet all the world’s needs if developed. But he acknowledged that while some European countries, such as Denmark, Germany and Spain, had made great strides in developing renewable energies, the EU region risked falling short of its 2010 objectives of a 22% share of electricity. Pan Jiahua of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences also noted that that for the huge Chinese economy, only large-scale hydroelectricity seemed competitive in the foreseeable future, a forecast that drew a number of reaction and dissenting views, with some noting that it was the world leader in installing photovoltaic systems.

Guido Delgado of Worldwater Philippines Inc. and Dörte Fouquet, director of EREF, drew from their experiences to suggest market and legal systems that should be in place to promote the investment and development of renewable energies. The former head of the national power company remarked that renewable energies could carve out a competitive niche in certain hours and conditions on the power grids, but would have to also prepare a convincing cash flow profile for investors to assume the political risk involved. The latter, a lawyer, reviewed the different regulatory systems in Europe and concluded that those providing long-term stability, including prices and access to the grid, tended to attract investors and lead to more development for renewable energies. But she also underlined the of a truly fair and competitive market in energy, which was dominated by subsidised traditional energies.

And Robert Koh, director of the Regional Institute for Environmental Technologies (RIET) in Singapore and Philippe Bergeron, also the former head of RIET and now the director of a project to develop use of the Clean Development Mechanism in ASEAN, discussed existing or visualised organisations to assist in the spread of such energy technologies. Koh specifically outlined potentials in Southeast Asia, but noted that in some less-developed countries there was limited ability, vision or structure to promote renewables and little support for the private sector. Indonesia and the Philippines were showing signs of movement and Indonesia had ambitions of becoming the world’s largest producer of geothermal energy. Malaysia and Thailand seemed more focused on hydropower and biomass development, he added, even considering it as a commercial export potential. Bergeron suggested that a new network should provide information to developers and to policymakers to develop “enabling policies.”

Some of the speakers also described specific projects or resources that could provide energy to isolated communities or an entire nation. Some projects would have to be regarded as development undertakings helping to reduce poverty and could be supported by donors while others appeared to be more commercial of interest to investors. The first category tended to be off-grid projects to provide electricity to isolated communities, while the other might be larger or competitive. A Japanese participant also informed the meeting of a special gathering planned on innovative forms of financing such projects. Corruption was also sighted as a retarding factor in some Asian countries. Another speaker indicated training and skills through university courses should be fostered in renewable energy production, engineering and even management in both regions.

While a number of projects in Asia, sometimes involving cooperation with Europe, were cited specifically, one series that gain considerable attention involved plans for four rice husk biomass power project in four rural provinces of Thailand. The first of these carefully-planned commercial ventures costing some $30-35 million each, described by Jakrit Watanatada of AT Biopower, is now under construction. Another was a community-based project to turn Negros Occidental province in the Philippines into a “renewable energy island” after public opposition forced cancellation of a coal-fired power plant project.

But amid the exchanges on methods and projects, there were also some passionate appeals for action. For example, some Asian participants noted that while RE was an one option for Europe, “it is a matter of survival” for some in Asia, where, for example, 20% of the 17,000 islands of Indonesia could be submerged by rising sea levels caused by climate change and carbon emissions.