The climate effects of bioenergy must be quantified consistently

Bioenergy is generally considered to be carbon-neutral. It can be used as replacement for fossil fuels and, therefore, as a way of mitigating climate change. The idea of bioenergy being carbon-neutral is based on the assumption that the carbon dioxide released by the combustion of biomass is bound again into the growing biomass. Based on the regeneration rate of biomass, this may well be the case. However, based on this fact alone, we cannot draw conclusions whether bioenergy is an efficient measure for climate change mitigation or nor.

Bioenergia ja ilmasto

Often conflicting quantification results of the climate effects of bioenergy make decision-making difficult and cause financial risks. At VTT and the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), we have been involved in international cooperation to study how the quantification practices could be made consistent. Our study, to be published in the Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews journal, clarifies what bioenergy production should be compared with when quantifying climate effects and what kind of conclusions can be drawn from the carbon balances defined in various ways.

The EU is currently considering how to involve the land use sector in the post-2020 climate commitments and what kind of sustainability criteria to apply to bioenergy. These decisions may also affect each other. The same issues also arise in connection with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Those bioenergy sources that can most efficiently respond to the mitigation targets for climate change will also be the most competitive ones. Therefore, it is important to identify the climate effects of bioenergy. The same also applies to the other products of the bioeconomy.

Inconsistencies lead to conflicting results and interpretations

When quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy, the particularly important question to ask is how the production of bioenergy is supposed to affect land use and, consequently, the development of carbon stocks.

In the quantifications of climate effects of bioenergy, some very conflicting results and interpretations have been produced, when different reference systems of land use have been used or the reference land use has been excluded in the first place. In addition, the starting points for the various analysis and their impact on the results are not always explained clearly enough. This makes it difficult to draw any consistent conclusions from the results.

To be able to quantify the real capacity of bioenergy to mitigate climate change, we must compare the production of bioenergy to a situation in which it is not produced. In such a case, the challenge lies not only in defining the form of alternative energy, but also in defining the reference system for biomass and the land area needed for producing it.

Systematic selection of the reference system for land use

In reality, the biomass and the land area needed for producing bioenergy always has some alternative fate. We call this alternative fate the “reference system”, meaning the situation which remains unrealised if the decision is made to use the land and biomass resources for bioenergy production. For land use, the reference system can be, for example, the use of the land area for production of different biomaterials, food or feed, construction, or provision of other ecosystem services.

For the purpose of systematic quantification of the climate effects of bioenergy, the reference system for the biomass or the land area needed for producing bioenergy can be selected in such a manner that it describes the most likely alternative use of the resource. The challenge is that, for objectivity’s sake, it may be necessary to draw up several scenarios on which alternative use of the resource would be the most likely. In addition, in such a case, it would also be necessary to define the indirect impacts that are caused when the service displaced, such as food, is produced elsewhere. The quantification may become very complicated and its results are very susceptible to any socio-economic assumptions made.

The indirect impacts related to land use have often been ignored in the quantifications of the climate effects of bioenergy. This means that the most likely alternative use of resources has been ignored. In such a case, the consistent assumption would be that, in the reference system, the biomass or the land area needed for producing bioenergy would not be used for any purpose. Therefore, depending on the research question and the time span suited for examining it, the land area would be either in its natural state or gradually returning towards it. Describing such a reference system entails scientific uncertainty, but no socio-economic uncertainty.

The key conclusion of our study is that the reference system must be selected in accordance with the research question. The selection of the reference system defines what kind of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis. Therefore, the reference system selected and its impact on the results must be clearly explained.

The study is part of the work of the International Energy Agency’s IEA Bioenergy Task 38 investigating the climate effects of bioenergy. The work performed by Finnish research scientists was funded by the Academy of Finland, the Sustainable Bioenergy Solutions for Tomorrow (BEST) research programme, and the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation.

Kati Koponen VTT

Kati Koponen
Research Scientist, DSc (Technology)
Twitter: Kati_Kop

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd
tel. +358 40 487 8123,

Sampo Soimakallio SYKE

Sampo Soimakallio
Docent, Senior Scientist
Twitter: @SSoimakallio
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
tel. +358 29 525 1803,

Research article

Koponen, K., Soimakallio, S., Kline, K., Cowie, A., Brandão, M. 2017. Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (in press).

Extreme weather phenomena and climate change challenge our transport system – part 3

In the third part of the blog series, we continue going through OECD’s recommendations, having reached the last ones, numbers 7 to 9. We conclude by estimating the Finnish transport system from the viewpoint of climate risks and extreme weather risks. Recommendations 1–3 are discussed here and 4–6 here.

At the turn of the year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) International Transport Forum (ITF) published a research report on the challenges posed by extreme weather phenomena and climate change to the transport system, particularly the transport infrastructure. The report Adapting Transport to Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and Network Managers lists recommendations for OECD Member Countries on minimising adverse effects. VTT is one of the report’s main authors.

7: Re-evaluate: are there infrastructures that are redundant or less useful?

When one part of a network fails, an old part of the network that has perhaps previously been considered redundant or less useful may suddenly turn out to be quite usable. Let us use an old bridge as an example. If a new bridge is built next to the old one, and its service ability drops for one reason or another, due to such a reason as extreme weather phenomenon or an accident, the old bridge may increase in importance beyond all recognition.

Under certain circumstances, an old and useless part of a transport network may be a useful emergency passage or an alternative route e.g. for light traffic.

8: Traditional cost-benefit analysis is not sufficient for appraising the profitability of transport projects

A traditional cost-benefit analysis does not observe the increased extreme weather risks and climate risks to a sufficient degree. Forecasting the future constitutes a specific risk factor (because the future is always uncertain!). In transport projects, the appraisal is made for a time horizon of 30–50 years ahead, and such a horizon already includes major climate change risks. However, we need to be able to assess and monetise such risks to ensure that we make as wise project and investment decisions as possible for now and with a view to the future in particular.

Therefore, project evaluations and cost-benefit analyses must be developed to take better account of the changed “risk landscape”. The same advice applies to almost all other long-term investment activities as well.

Already in the course of the EWENT (Extreme weather impacts on European networks of transport) project, the European Investment Bank started to develop its own project evaluation system, and today climate risks are observed in EIB project evaluations.

9: Develop decision-support tools and methods for the new age of uncertain future

Advanced and often a little hard-to-understand decision-support methods, such as real-options and multi-criteria analyses are excellent decision tools in spite of the complicated mathematics involved, as long as they are applied correctly and the users understand the nature, the framework conditions and the limitations of the tool. Real-options analysis is particularly well suited for the appraisal of new investments – this involves making significant decisions that are difficult to reverse and that you need to live with for a long time. Transport infrastructure projects are typical examples of such decisions. Real-options analysis can be used, for example, for monetising “flexibility” (keeping different options open) and postponement of a decision (when the future is uncertain, it may be wise to wait…). In other words, sometimes it may be sensible to update old infrastructure and postpone large investments, when there are major uncertainty factors involved.

Multi-criteria analysis methods can be applied, for example, for selecting investments, projects and strategies in such a manner that enables finding options that function sufficiently well in most of the selected scenarios – even if the selected option was not the best in any of them. In game theory, this is referred to as minimising the possible losses instead of trying to maximise the gains.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Finnish transport system in the light of extreme weather risks

In the broad sense, the Finnish transport system consists of the infrastructure, as well as the vehicles using the infrastructure, the transport information infrastructure, transport system operators (administration, companies, transport operators, passengers), and the operating and steering systems associated with all of the above. This is in fact a genuine “meta system”, a system of systems.

The physical modes of transport – road, rail, water and airborne transport systems – differ significantly from each other in terms of technology, utilisation rate and properties affecting their resilience. Furthermore, each physical infrastructure is supported by subsystems supplementing it, such as drainage systems, lighting, signs and intelligent transport applications (e.g. changing signals, information systems), not to mention the vehicles, terminals, railway yards and stations. Therefore, the transport system consists of complex subsystems, the management of which requires not only a holistic approach, but also an immense amount of concrete hands-on work varying from managerial strategy drafting to snow-plowing.

Transport system and elements affecting its resilience.

Resilience can be most efficiently and cost-effectively affected when transport systems are in their planning stages. As a rule, any solutions added at later stages, no matter how necessary, are in relative terms more expensive and less efficient. Therefore, the primary starting point for ensuring a functional operation system lies in the planning of transport systems and land use.

Opportunities to influence and expenses required for improved resilience
(adapted from Leviäkangas & Michaelides, 2014).

The Finnish transport system is relatively complete, comprehensive and functional, and the share of major network investments of the overall expenses of the system is relatively low. The use and maintenance of the existing infrastructure constitute the biggest expense items over the life-cycle of the asset. Therefore, there is only a limited amount of methods available for improving resilience once the infrastructure asset is put in its place. Efforts can still be made by focusing on preventive and enhanced maintenance strategies.

Some threats to the resilience of the transport system are associated with the subsystems supporting the physical infrastructure, such as serious disturbances in the power supply, communications and information systems (cyber threats), transport logistics and security of supply; increasingly severe and exceptional extreme weather phenomena; and, to a certain degree, crime that threatens societal order (e.g. terrorism) as well. It is necessary to draw up risk management strategies, plans and guidelines also for these threats. It is equally important to increase the resource readiness by making sure that maintenance and removal fleets and manpower are at disposal once the adverse event hits.


ITF (2016) Adapting Transport to Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and Network Managers, ITF Research Reports, OECD Publishing, Paris.

The report can be downloaded at:;jsessionid=5o0iqml8ohiq9.x-oecd-live-03

EWENT project:


Leviäkangas, P. & Aapaoja, A. (2015) Resilienssin käsite ja operationalisointi – case liikennejärjestelmä. Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja 1/2015. (In Finnish.)

Leviäkangas, P. & Michaelides, S. (2014) Transport system management under extreme weather risks: views to project appraisal, asset value protection and risk-aware system management. Natural Hazards, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 263–286.

Pekka Leviäkangas VTT

Pekka Leviäkangas, Principal Scientist

Aki Aapaoja VTT

Aki Aapaoja, Research Scientist

Are CCU and the carbon reuse economy part of the solution?

Why does carbon – one of the most common elements in the universe – play such a critical role in modern society? Unfortunately, its use is also associated with climate change, the greatest problem of our time.

As concepts, CCU or the capture and utilisation of carbon, and the related carbon reuse economy, are not simple or necessarily easy to grasp. CCU, a technological term used in a number of contexts, is being proposed as a solution to a range of needs.

Due to its range of applications, CCU has many champions and seems to represent many things, from the world’s salvation from climate change to new business opportunities and carbon sources. Such multiplicity also leads to confusion and misconceptions about the kinds of impacts, good or bad, which the technology’s application may have. To shed light on the issue, in this blog we try to explain what CCU and the carbon reuse economy are all about. Why should we be interested in them and how might they serve key industrial sectors in Finland, for example?

What is at stake?

CCU, or carbon capture and utilisation, refers to the separation of carbon dioxide for instance from flue gases to prevent CO2’s release into the atmosphere where it would accelerate climate change combined with use of captured carbon dioxide either as such, or as a source of carbon in other processes.

On the other hand, the carbon reuse economy refers to chemical processes and concepts using either carbon dioxide or other one-carbon molecules – such as carbon monoxide resulting from gasification or methane in biogas – as inputs.

In turn, CCS refers to the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. This could halt the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere caused by the use of fossil raw materials. CCU, on the other hand, will not prove to be a long-term, overall solution if fossil resources continue to be used. It will be more of a technological solution enabling carbon-based processes in a fully sustainable system.

The ongoing energy transition is characterised by sustainability and mitigation of climate change. From this perspective, the assessment of CCU is complicated by the diversity of applications and concepts and the consequent diversity of CCU’s climate impacts, which could be anything ranging from very negative to positive; it all depends on the energy system in which CCU is applied, and the direction and speed of the systems’ transition. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy is required when using carbon dioxide in any form other than pure carbon dioxide. For the use of carbon dioxide as a raw material to be sustainable, such energy must be produced sustainably. This ties CCU tightly into the greater use of renewable and other emission-free energy, which again highlights the system perspective.

But might there be reasons for recycling carbon dioxide, other than mitigating climate change?

Recovered carbon dioxide (CCU) is already used in many applications, for example as a protective gas or in soft drinks. It is also converted into chemicals such as urea or inorganic carbonates.

As mentioned above, the use of carbon dioxide always requires energy. Hydrogen provides the simplest way of applying energy to carbon dioxide. A key challenge in CCU and the carbon reuse economy lies in the availability of hydrogen produced using affordable, low-carbon energy. Despite the record levels of investment in low-carbon energy across the globe and the anticipated plunge in prices in forthcoming years, sustainably produced hydrogen will be the most powerful brake on CCU investments. As a result, carbon reuse economy processes can be divided into three categories according to their need for hydrogen:

  1. processes that do not require hydrogen;
  2. hybrid processes with a limited need for hydrogen and which can use other C1 gases in addition to carbon dioxide;
  3. processes with a significant need for hydrogen.

Processes with no requirement for hydrogen include various mineral processes for the production of inorganic carbonates. For example, VTT is studying the recovery of carbon dioxide from lime kilns and its use in the production of pure precipitated calcium carbonate. Certain organic special and fine chemicals can also be made from carbon dioxide, without using hydrogen. Hybrid processes can be used alongside biomass gasification processes, for example. The key usable components in gas from gasification are carbon monoxide and hydrogen.  In addition, significant amounts of carbon dioxide are generated as a by-product, which can be converted into fuel or chemicals by using an external hydrogen source.

A range of possibilities is associated with hydrogen-based carbon dioxide conversion processes. Such possibilities tend to be based on chemical catalysis, or they are biochemical. The related processes tend to result initially in C1 intermediate products, such as methane or methanol, which can be used as a mediator and fuel, or as an intermediate product for producing other fuels and chemicals.   Speciality chemicals such as acrylic acid, whose production is currently being studied by VTT, can also be directly produced via biochemical processes. Based on Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, catalytic routes can lead to the production of alkanes and alkenes instead of C1 compounds. Alkanes are potential fuel components, whereas alkenes are suitable for the production of a wide variety of chemicals.

While CCU and the carbon reuse economy are clearly technologies that would help enable a sustainable society, they are not, alone, solutions to climate change.

However, the related technologies and products could be a new growth area for Finnish industry and exports. In the short term, the greatest potential lies in technologies based on the utilisation of carbon dioxide without hydrogen, or with a limited need for it. However, as low-energy hydrogen production proliferates, hydrogen-intensive technologies will also be adopted.

CCU requires carbon dioxide as well as hydrogen sources. In the first phase, these could be major fossil-fuel-based emission sources, such as steel mills or oil refineries. However, as decarbonisation progresses, there will be a progressive transition to bio-based emission sources, such as the wood processing industry or energy production from biomass. In the case of bio-based CO2 sources, we could in some casesachieve net carbon removal from the atmosphere (bio-CCU).

The most expensive alternative would be carbon dioxide recovery from the air, but this is also a possible future option. VTT and the Lappeenranta University of Technology are currently demonstrating this concept via the Soletair project funded by Tekes. The project combines carbon dioxide captured from the air with hydrogen produced using renewable electricity; hydrocarbons suitable as fuels are obtained from these, using Fischer-Tropsch technology. The entire system consists of three production containers and a demo of their simultaneous use has been under way in Lappeenranta since June 2017.

Tell us what you think of the carbon reuse economy and CCU!

CCU is often justified on the basis of its positive effects on climate change, but other drivers might include the use of new, renewable energy as a raw material (instead of fossil fuels) in carbon-based processes, i.e., so-called indirect electrification, or simply the need for carbon dioxide in certain processes or products. Climate driver will dominate the long-term energy system change. However, favourable economic conditions for this must be in place, if companies and investors are to implement broad change. At the moment, this means incentives based on the costs of externalities (climate policy, for example) or the long-term risk management of investments.

We have tried to outline these issues in the attached discussion paper. Can you think of any aspects or applications which we have failed to account for in this?

As we produce scientific data and figures in support of the ideas outlined in this document, we would be delighted to see plenty of feedback to this paper from everyone (perhaps in the comments section below).

Antti Arasto VTT

Antti Arasto, Research Manager
Twitter: @ArastoAntti

Juha Lehtonen VTT

Juha Lehtonen, Research Professor

Extreme weather phenomena and climate change challenge our transport system – part 2

Principal Scientist Pekka Leviäkangas and Senior Scientist Riitta Molarius are presenting the OECD publication’s key recommendations in a series of blog articles this spring. In this, the second part, they sum up preparedness plans for ensuring a functioning transport system, chart the vulnerability of infrastructure assets and emphasise the importance of systemic approaches. Read the first part here.

At the turn of the year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) International Transport Forum (ITF) published a research report on the challenges posed by extreme weather phenomena and climate change to the transport system, particularly the transport infrastructure. The report Adapting Transport to Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and Network Managers lists recommendations for OECD Member Countries on minimising adverse effects.

VTT is one of the report’s main authors. In this second blog post, we discuss the recommendations further, focussing on recommendations 4–6.

4: Account for the temporary unavailability of transport systems in service continuity plans

Extreme weather events can disrupt connections, interrupt traffic and adversely affect operations in various ways – even if weather phenomena are not at their most extreme. In such cases, an organisation’s preparedness to respond is the key to managing the situation and keeping damage to a minimum.

Various tools are available to public authorities and companies, including in the form of standards such as the ISO 22301 Societal security – Business continuity management systems standard. This standard is primarily designed for business performance management of companies, but it in fact works well also for public organisations, once the word ‘business’ is put in parentheses. The standard will help organisations to protect themselves from disruptive events by means such as reducing their likelihood, preparing for them, or enabling rapid recovery. The standard focuses on information exchange, the allocation of duties and cooperation between parties, by defining criteria for effective contingency management, planning and operations. Major operational improvements can be made and capacity for managing exceptional situations built by going through the checklists in the standard. The standard, which is general in nature, helps to prepare for various disruptions other than just extreme weather events.

Information exchange, planning and operational systems play a key role in organisational contingency planning. All of these, in turn, are partly relying on technological tools. A wide range of such tools is available. The challenge lies in how to incorporate technology in organisational and institutional processes, to prevent them from being paper tigers that lack concrete, practical tools. A strong services continuity plan will support an organisation in managing disruptive scenarios by providing solutions and models for re-routing transportation or asset management recovery plans, for example.

Euroopan ilmastoalueiden luokittelu sään ääri-ilmiöiden mukaan

Figure 1. Classification of European climate regions based on adverse and extreme phenomena and projected trends in the frequency of adverse and extreme phenomena by the 2050s (Leviäkangas & Saarikivi, 2012, EWENT D6).

5: Assess the vulnerability of transport infrastructure assets

Vulnerability is challenging to define whether one tries to do it in theoretical or practical terms. However, the basic idea is to identify the probability that threatening events will occur, their domino and distributional effects, and ‘weak links’, i.e. the structures and locations that are most exposed, vulnerable and most susceptible to extreme weather-related stress. Merely summing up these factors provides a preliminary idea of vulnerability.

The EWENT project, which focused on extreme weather impacts, defined vulnerability as follows (Molarius et al. 2014):

Weather equation

The above equation is useful because it defines the components of vulnerability, which in the best case facilitates the concept’s operationalisation into measurable set of variables.

For instance, in the aforementioned EWENT project a risk index for main routes in Finland was calculated using the above formula as a function of vulnerability and risk (Figure 2).

Suomen pääliikenneväylien haavoittuvuusindeksi sään ääri-ilmiöitä kohtaan

Figure 2. The vulnerability index for extreme weather phenomena for main transport routes in Finland. The higher the numerical value, the more vulnerable the transport route. The first figure refers to vulnerability to accidents, the second describes infrastructure vulnerability and the third delays in transport. The routes included are roads, railways (rail), sea passages (short sea), air transport (aviation) and inland water transport (IWT). Blue = passenger index, red = freight index.

The transport system can be further divided into subsystems (modes of transport, their infrastructures, rolling stock, organisations, services), making the complex system block more manageable. It is simpler and more understandable to assess the vulnerability and risks of these elements than to process the system as a whole. In a way, vulnerability can be considered as the inverse value of resilience, the ability to resist and recover.

Unless we invest in maintaining our transport system, our ageing infrastructure will accumulate an increasing investment deficit and become more vulnerable, whilst extreme weather phenomena become more common. In addition to infrastructure’s condition itself, factors influencing the system’s vulnerability include traffic volumes (the more traffic, the more negative aggregate effects), and general economic capacity (the more economic resources, the better you are able to cope with adverse impacts).

6: Focus on transport system resilience, not just infrastructure

The construction and maintenance of a robust and invulnerable infrastructure pays dividends. Other elements of a resilient system include flexibility, responsiveness, adaptation and fast recovery. Less attention has perhaps been paid to these elements than they deserve. In thick snow, do snowploughs start moving fast enough and is there enough fleet and equipment? When services of this type are outsourced, this may be a purely contractual issue, which means that e.g. public procurements can play a role in resilience. Or, has sufficient attention been paid to proactive maintenance in infrastructure maintenance contracts, or has the lowest bidder been selected? As climate warming proceeds and extreme weather becomes more frequent, have we renewed our maintenance fleet and service contracts accordingly, or have we simply begun to wait for snowless winters and iceless routes?

Cities play a key role  

Most transport needs arise in cities. Both the population (in 2015, almost 86% of the Finnish population lived in cities) and high-value production and services are concentrated in cities. Urban transport system resilience has most impact on the everyday lives of citizens.

When the tram fails, take a bus, or vice versa. The construction, maintenance and servicing of bicycle routes not only serves to keep people fit or supports a nice way of moving around, it plays a more important role in ensuring the functionality of the entire transport system. Access to cities for residents of sparsely populated areas can be supported by constructing connective infrastructure (i.e. parking areas, connecting stations) at public transport nodes on the outer reaches of core areas. As a rule of thumb, diversity is a strength in systemic resilience, which is why it should always be on the checklist of urban planners. On the other hand, there are drawbacks to diversity, because to be market attractive, public transport should be able to serve its customers at the time of need. A public transport network, that is sufficiently dense and high-capacity increases, in turn, the risk of buses or trams running empty, thus contributing to higher emissions. Enhancing flexibility may require a re-evaluation of the public transport system, shifting the emphasis from economies of scale (which works sometimes, but not always) to a more agile and flexible system. How about small, demand-responsive electric buses?

In the next blog post, we will discuss the final three recommendations of the OECD’s publication and consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Finnish transport system.

Pekka Leviäkangas VTT

Pekka Leviäkangas, Principal Scientist

Riitta Molarius VTT

Riitta Molarius, Senior Scientist

Read more:

ITF (2016), Adapting Transport to Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and Network Managers, ITF Research Reports, OECD Publishing, Paris.

The report can be downloaded at:;jsessionid=5o0iqml8ohiq9.x-oecd-live-03

The EWENT project:

Leviäkangas P & Saarikivi P 2012: D6: European Extreme Weather Risk Management – Needs, Opportunitites, Costs and Recommendations.

VTT Technology 43: Weather hazards and vulnerabilities for the European transport system – a risk panorama.

Extreme weather phenomena and climate change challenge our transport system

At the turn of the year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) International Transport Forum (ITF) published a research report on the challenges posed by extreme weather phenomena and climate change to the transport system, the transport infrastructure in particular. The report Adapting Transport to Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and Network Managers lists nine recommendations for OECD Member Countries for mitigating and reducing the adverse effects.

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd was one of the main authors of several chapters of the report, and the EWENT project that VTT coordinated a few years ago served as an important source of information for the report.

The results of the EWENT project showed that the damage caused by extreme weather could account for up to 0.15% of the EU Member States’ GDP. Every year!

The first step to take is to react immediately: Act now!

The challenges must be acknowledged now, and it is time to start processing them in the long term at once. By means of reports and seminars alone the matters will not advance as concretely as they should.

The way we have designed and built our transport system (as well as many other infrastructure systems) is based on old information. Infrastructure refers to the basic structures with life cycles extending across generations that must pass from father to son, grandson, and even great-grandson.

The transport infrastructure – ports, railways, airports, roads, streets – must be designed preparing for strain caused by increasingly stronger weather phenomena. The most important starting point for such design is the location. For example, if there is hint of risk of flooding, seek for higher ground. If flooding waters stop traffic every year or a few years apart, something is wrong. One can be prepared to face the same headache in the coming years, and even in an increasing extent.

Investing in preventive maintenance is an absolute requirement as part of preparedness: the existing structures must be maintained in such a way that the stress of weather will not damage them before the end of their natural life cycle. Maintenance usually costs less than building new structures. Sometimes, however, it may be necessary to renew the threatened basic structures that require expensive maintenance. Searching and operationalising the optimal strategy is a complex process, where research will help.

The infrastructure budgets are scarce almost everywhere in the world, and Finland is no exception. Keeping infrastructure safe and functional is swallowing an increasing share of our resources. If we do not make the necessary investments and take care of the maintenance, the future generations will need to pick up the tab.

Second recommendation: Prepare for more frequent problems caused by weather, and even failure of transport infrastructure in certain places

If all traffic into and out of a city mainly takes place through one passage or bridge, that bottleneck may turn out to be a strategic problem. All eggs should not be put in one basket, but there should be alternative routes or modes of transport available even if serious phenomena hit the area.

This strategy does not apply to extreme weather phenomena only, but also to other threats, such as terrorism or vandalism. Also it is wise to have modal options – when rails fail, the roads must offer the alternative, and vice versa.

Third recommendation: Make business continuity plans

When the transport system fails, one must know what to do next, who needs to be informed, and which chains of action to launch. When there are floods in Ostrobothnia, army engineers are needed to blow up the ice dykes. As a rule, Finnish authorities have good business continuity plans, and the local fire brigades and rescue services are on the ball together with other actors.

But are the resources scaled in such a way that preparations have also been made for more frequently occurring and intensive problems?

Technology and its use plays an important role

Technology plays a major role in all the three strategic activities described above.

  • The technologies and architectures for disseminating and sharing information serve the needs of coordinated co-operation, which is needed when dealing with extreme weather phenomena. In some contexts, novel ideas such as block chains could turn out to offer new possibilities for information exchange.
  • Sensorization and real-time monitoring of the basic structures and environment enable early reaction and minimisation of damage. New asset management philosophies and tools are needed to make use of modern technology, old ways of thinking might not work.
  • Risk management methods, system analyses and scenario techniques are tools that provide means for managing resilience, or resistance and operational reliability. Decision-makers and analysts need to start using these tools for real, and not only for academic exercises.

I would dare to say that even if the threat of adverse effects sounds bad, the challenges ahead could provide Finnish know-how a new stepping stone – we have the right mix of technological and organisational competence.

More information

Pekka Leviäkangas VTT

Pekka Leviäkangas, Principal Scientist

I will present the nine key recommendations for action made in the OECD publication in a series of three blog articles during this spring. In each of the articles, I will discuss the recommendations personally or in collaboration with my colleagues.

Climate action gains further momentum in Marrakech

The Paris climate agreement came into force several years earlier than originally expected. At the Climate Change Conference held in Marrakech, Morocco, on 7 to 18 November 2016, the details and implementation of the Paris Agreement were negotiated. The Finnish delegation included Senior Scientist Tommi Ekholm and Research Scientist Tomi J. Lindroos from VTT. Progress was made, even if it was slow and often technical and bureaucratic. In many cases, the most interesting things happened outside the meeting rooms.


The negotiations focused on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – detailed rules that ensure the attainment of the Paris Agreement in practice. Key issues included the rules for international emissions trading, funding and capacity-building for developing countries, and the reporting of emissions by such nations. As is customary at climate change summits, rapid progress was made on some fronts, while negotiations almost stalled on other issues. The most difficult topic seemed to be the so-called ‘global stocktake’ process. This will consist of a five-yearly assessment of whether the countries’ emission reduction targets will suffice to hold global warming under two degrees.

The election of Donald Trump as US president was confirmed during the first week of the summit. This led to a reaction of disbelief and uncertainty at the climate conference, since he had promised to begin his term in office by withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement. Correspondingly, many developing countries had indicated that their participation depended on that of the US. However, the Marrakesh summit retained its positive spirit, with the participants deciding that one country or president should not be allowed to block promising developments. China, for example, promised to take a more leading role if the United States stays on the sidelines. In just over a week, Trump had already reconsidered and was giving thought to sticking by the Paris Agreement.


USA side-event in Marrakech.

Many countries published new climate objectives or strategies before, during or after the climate meeting. In addition to nation states, over 7,000 municipalities and cities have adopted voluntary climate goals; while hundreds of companies have made their own climate pledges and set emission reduction targets. We have clearly entered a new era of climate policy.

The speed of technology development surprises every year

The price of many low-carbon technologies, such as solar and wind power, have fallen faster than expected over the last few years. Around 300 billion dollars were invested globally in renewable energy production in 2015, and the cost of renewable electricity has clearly fallen below that of fossil power in many auctions. The next, corresponding transformation may occur in traffic.

Global CO2 emissions have almost marked time over the last three years. This development has been much more positive than countries’ emission reduction commitments suggest. On the other hand, the matter is urgent since many observations and measurements indicate faster-than-expected global warming, and more dramatic effects than predicted.

Tomi J. Lindroos, Research Scientist

Tommi Ekholm, Senior Scientist

Local residents must be heard in Arctic climate and energy policy

In recent years, Arctic areas have played a pivotal role in the debate on energy and security policy. As global warming is having the strongest impacts on the northernmost areas, new sea routes will emerge, as will new opportunities to use natural resources.

The United States is acting as the Chair of the Arctic Council in 2015–2017. Its chairmanship programme focuses on three areas: Improving Economic & Living Conditions for Arctic Communities; Arctic Ocean Safety, Security & Stewardship; Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change.  As part of its quest for answers to these questions, the US launched a Fulbright Arctic Initiative research programme, bringing together 17 researchers from eight Arctic countries to address the joint challenges affecting the entire Arctic area.  The programme began on 1 May 2015 and will last for 18 months. I am one of the programme participants – the only one from Finland.

Cooperation throughout the area

The expertise of the Arctic Initiative programme participants is centred around the four themes of the Fulbright Arctic Initiative programme: energy, water, health and infrastructure. Each programme participant is conducting a personal research project around one of these themes. Additionally, we have formed three groups that engage in cooperative research I am in the energy group with five other researchers.

The first steps of our cooperation were challenging, as we come from different academic fields and did not know each other in advance. We launched our cooperation in May, by attending a week-long seminar in the town of Iqaluit, on Baffin Island, in the Nunavut territory of Northeast Canada. As our first step, we sought to form an overall understanding of key questions pertaining to energy production and energy policy in the Arctic. After the seminar, we continued to cooperate through ‘irregularly regular’ online meetings, online conferences involving all programme participants, and in a midway seminar held last February in Oulu, Finland.

Gradually our work has progressed: our group created a website (, drew up publication plans and finally settled on a common research topic. Our joint efforts will involve looking into what an increasing shift towards renewable energy sources means for Arctic regions, particularly to its inhabitants, and their means of influencing such a change. We will showcase our work next October in Washington, where the programme results will be presented at several events to the Arctic policymakers, researchers and the general public.

Participants in the Fulbright Arctic Initiative programme in Iqaluit in May 2015.

Climate change and energy policy in the Arctic

The Arctic region will face major changes in the coming decades. Although local emissions are relatively small, climate change is having greater effects on this region than elsewhere. The Arctic climate has already warmed by two degrees since pre-industrial times, and the changing climate is affecting traditional livelihoods such as fishing and reindeer husbandry. Increasingly strict emissions targets – to which the agreement reached in Paris last December can be expected to contribute – mean increasing use of renewable energy, including in the Arctic region. The tree line is expected to move northwards over forthcoming decades. Estimates suggest that boreal forests will replace 10–50% of tundra within the next 100 years.

On the other hand, different Arctic countries are facing very different situations. The week we spent in Iqaluit last May clearly demonstrated how different the living situation is in the North American Arctic compared to the Scandinavian Arctic. In the territory of Nunavut, where Baffin Island is located, energy production is almost completely reliant on energy imported from elsewhere. Practically all electricity is generated by diesel. Most villages spend most of the year completely cut off, with aeroplanes serving as the only means of transport. Problems and solutions that are relevant to Scandinavia may not be relevant at all to North Canada or Alaska.

The opinions and livelihoods of local inhabitants matter

Arctic areas are facing considerable problems, and there are no simple solutions. A programme such as Fulbright Arctic Initiative produces information and insight in support of the work of decision-makers. It is essential to hear local inhabitants – Inuits, the Sámi people and others alike – in decision-making, in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of past decades. They must be listened to when energy production is developed.

On the other hand, such areas also need support in adapting to the effects of climate change. Indigenous people in many Arctic areas often have social problems. As global warming threatens traditional livelihoods such as reindeer husbandry and seal hunting, these problems and general feelings of pessimism are at risk of worsening. Both the United States and Finland as the next Chair of the Arctic Council seem willing to address these issues. Time will tell what solutions are found for Arctic climate and energy policy.

Laura Sokka

Senior Scientist

Laura Sokka is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Earth System Science at Stanford University.

The Fulbright Center (Finland–US Educational Exchange Commission FUSEEC) is an organisation specialising in academic exchanges between Finland and North America. In Finland, the Fulbright Center is a private, independent, non-profit organisation whose operations are funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, the US and Canadian governments and increasingly by private foundations and individuals. The Fulbright Center annually awards some EUR 900,000 in scholarships for exchanges between Finland and the US.

The Fulbright programme supports academically distinguished students, researchers and professionals from various fields. The Fulbright Center also awards grants to American postgraduate students, lecturers, researchers and experts arriving in Finland.  VTT also receives high-level visiting researchers from America every year through the Fulbright programme.