IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i21p7267-d1267747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Challenges in Long-Term Strategic Energy Planning in LMICs: Learning Pathways in an Energy Planning Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Cannone

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
    Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK)

  • Pooya Hoseinpoori

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK)

  • Leigh Martindale

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
    Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK)

  • Elizabeth M. Tennyson

    (Centre for Global Equality, Cambridge CB2 1SJ, UK
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0AS, UK)

  • Francesco Gardumi

    (Department of Energy Technology, School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Lucas Somavilla Croxatto

    (Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London WC1E 6JA, UK)

  • Steve Pye

    (UCL Energy Institute, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK)

  • Yacob Mulugetta

    (Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London WC1E 6JA, UK)

  • Ioannis Vrochidis

    (TUM School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, 85748 Garching b. München, Germany)

  • Satheesh Krishnamurthy

    (School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK)

  • Taco Niet

    (School of Sustainable Energy Engineering, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC V3T 0N1, Canada)

  • John Harrison

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK)

  • Rudolf Yeganyan

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK)

  • Martin Mutembei

    (Strathmore Energy Research Centre (SERC), Strathmore University, Madaraka Campus, Nairobi 00200, Kenya)

  • Adam Hawkes

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK)

  • Luca Petrarulo

    (Independent Researcher, 20124 Milan, Italy)

  • Lara Allen

    (Centre for Global Equality, Cambridge CB2 1SJ, UK
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0AS, UK)

  • Will Blyth

    (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, London SW1A 2AH, UK)

  • Mark Howells

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
    Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK)

Abstract

This paper presents an innovative approach to addressing critical global challenges in long-term energy planning for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The paper proposes and tests an international enabling environment, a delivery ecosystem, and a community of practice. These components are integrated into workflows that yield four self-sustaining capacity-development outcomes. Planning long-term energy strategies in LMICs is particularly challenging due to limited national agency and poor international coordination. While outsourcing energy planning to foreign experts may appear to be a viable solution, it can lead to a reduction in government agency (the ability of a government to make its own informed analysis and decisions). Additionally, studies commissioned by external experts may have conflicting terms of reference, and a lack of familiarity with local conditions can result in misrepresentations of on-the-ground realities. It is argued here that enhancing national agency and analytical capacity can improve coordination and lead to more robust planning across line ministries and technical assistance (TA) providers. Moreover, the prevailing consulting model hampers the release and accessibility of underlying analytics, making it difficult to retrieve, reuse, and reconstruct consultant outputs. The absence of interoperability among outputs from various consultants hinders the ability to combine and audit the insights they provide. To overcome these challenges, five strategic principles for energy planning in LMICs have been introduced and developed in collaboration with 21 international and research organizations, including the AfDB, IEA, IRENA, IAEA, UNDP, UNECA, the World Bank, and WRI. These principles prioritize national ownership, coherence and inclusivity, capacity, robustness, transparency and accessibility. In this enabling environment, a unique delivery ecosystem consisting of knowledge products and activities is established. The paper focuses on two key knowledge products as examples of this ecosystem: the open-source energy modeling system (OSeMOSYS) and the power system flexibility tool (IRENA FlexTool). These ecosystem elements are designed to meet user-friendliness, retrievability, reusability, reconstructability, repeatability, interoperability, and audibility (U4RIA) goals. To ensure the sustainability of this ecosystem, OpTIMUS is introduced—a community of practice dedicated to maintaining, supporting, expanding, and nurturing the elements within the ecosystem. Among other ecosystem elements, training and research initiatives are introduced, namely the Energy Modelling Platform for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific as well as the ICTP Joint Summer School on Modelling Tools for Sustainable Development. Once deployed via workflows, the preliminary outcomes of these capacity-development learning pathways show promise. Further investigation is necessary to evaluate their long-term impacts, scalability, replication, and deployment costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Cannone & Pooya Hoseinpoori & Leigh Martindale & Elizabeth M. Tennyson & Francesco Gardumi & Lucas Somavilla Croxatto & Steve Pye & Yacob Mulugetta & Ioannis Vrochidis & Satheesh Krishnamurthy &, 2023. "Addressing Challenges in Long-Term Strategic Energy Planning in LMICs: Learning Pathways in an Energy Planning Ecosystem," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-35, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:21:p:7267-:d:1267747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/21/7267/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/21/7267/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nigel Gilbert & Petra Ahrweiler & Pete Barbrook-Johnson & Kavin Preethi Narasimhan & Helen Wilkinson, 2018. "Computational Modelling of Public Policy: Reflections on Practice," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(1), pages 1-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Louise Freebairn & Jo-An Atkinson & Nathaniel D Osgood & Paul M Kelly & Geoff McDonnell & Lucie Rychetnik, 2019. "Turning conceptual systems maps into dynamic simulation models: An Australian case study for diabetes in pregnancy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, June.
    2. de Moura, Fernanda Senra & Barbrook-Johnson, Peter, 2022. "Using data-driven systems mapping to contextualise complexity economics insights," INET Oxford Working Papers 2022-27, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    3. Casey R. Corrado & Suzanne M. DeLong & Emily G. Holt & Edward Y. Hua & Andreas Tolk, 2022. "Combining Green Metrics and Digital Twins for Sustainability Planning and Governance of Smart Buildings and Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Paulo Gonçalves & Paolo Ferrari & Luca Crivelli & Emiliano Albanese, 2023. "Model‐informed health system reorganization during emergencies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1323-1344, May.
    5. Marius Kaffai & Raphael H Heiberger, 2021. "Modeling non-pharmaceutical interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic with survey-based simulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Martin Klein & Ulrich J. Frey & Matthias Reeg, 2019. "Models Within Models – Agent-Based Modelling and Simulation in Energy Systems Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 22(4), pages 1-6.
    7. Run Tang & Xin Guan & Junfan Zhu & Bo Liu & Zeyu Wang & Fanbao Xie, 2023. "Evaluation of Sustainable City and Old-Age Security Policy Intervention in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Noeldeke, Beatrice & Winter, Etti & Ntawuhiganayo, Elisée Bahati, 2022. "Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Anja Bauer & Leo Capari & Daniela Fuchs & Titus Udrea, 2023. "Diversification, integration, and opening: developments in modelling for policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 977-987.
    10. Beatrice Nöldeke & Etti Winter & Yves Laumonier & Trifosa Simamora, 2021. "Simulating Agroforestry Adoption in Rural Indonesia: The Potential of Trees on Farms for Livelihoods and Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, April.
    11. repec:thr:techub:10029:y:2022:i:1:p:29-41 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Stefano Yohanes Munaiseche & Abdul Rahman Dilapanga & Recky Herold Elby Sendouw & Marthinus Mandagi, 2022. "Evaluation of Beriman's Terminal Retribution at Tomohon City," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 29(1), pages 29-41, March.
    13. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    14. Süsser, Diana & Gaschnig, Hannes & Ceglarz, Andrzej & Stavrakas, Vassilis & Flamos, Alexandros & Lilliestam, Johan, 2022. "Better suited or just more complex? On the fit between user needs and modeller-driven improvements of energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).
    15. Furkan Gursoy & Bertan Badur, 2021. "An Agent-Based Modelling Approach to Brain Drain," Papers 2103.03234, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    16. Bernardo Alves Furtado & Gustavo Onofre Andre~ao, 2022. "Machine Learning Simulates Agent-Based Model Towards Policy," Papers 2203.02576, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:21:p:7267-:d:1267747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.