[Dr. Bernd Hezel is the CEO of Climate Media Factory in Potsdam, Germany. In the LOCALISED Project, he brings decarbonisation knowledge to end users by co-designing and co-creating the two main tools: the Climate Action Strategiser Tool and the Net-Zero Business Consultant.]
- The LOCALISED Project, like RethinkAction, emerged from the same Horizon 2020 funding call and aims to support decision-makers and citizens in the sustainable transition through a digital tool. Could you briefly outline the project’s main objectives and approach?
The sooner we stop burning coal, oil, and gas, the better it is for all of us. Therefore, the EU and its member states have committed to reaching net-zero emissions, but to make that happen, action needs to start at the local level. That means translating—what we call ‘downscaling’—national climate strategies into concrete plans for regions and municipalities.
That’s where CAST, the Climate Action Strategiser Tool, comes in. The model behind the online tool uses national climate action pathways from a previous project, a database of climate adaptation and mitigation measures and a massive, downscaled dataset to create emission reduction and adaptation plans for any European municipality. More specifically, it calculates optimized sets of measures based on different priorities users might have, like affordability, emissions reduction or social equity. These plans can then be refined and co-created with local decision-makers and residents.
We believe this will be a game-changer for small and medium-sized municipalities that don’t have their own climate planning department or haven’t yet made significant progress in climate action. CAST can jumpstart their efforts and turn climate goals into real, actionable plans.
- User involvement is key to ensuring the relevance and usability of digital tools. In RethinkAction we have our End User-Community. What have been the key lessons learned from your participatory process with local end-users?
First of all, we learned that it’s crucial to provide concrete suggestions and alternatives when asking for feedback. Many stakeholders, especially potential users of the tools, may not come up with highly original solutions themselves, but they’re very good at evaluating the usefulness of ideas when presented with options. More open-ended questions should, in our view, be reserved for specifically trained or well-established experts in the field.
Also, an often underestimated challenge is the different levels of motivation to co-create among partners within a consortium. Some are highly engaged, while others contribute less actively to co-creating results—or may even resist incorporating the insights gained from the process. One key takeaway for me is the importance of investing time and effort upfront to align team motivation. From the start, project consortia need to have open conversations about the depth and goals of co-creation and what each partner stands to gain from it.
Co-creating the design of the final outcome is critical. Otherwise, there’s a real risk that the results of these projects will just sit on a shelf, unused by the target group. This priority, however, isn’t equally important to all partners. Some are focused on developing a genuinely useful tool, while others are more motivated by publishing research results. One of the biggest balancing acts in Horizon projects is ensuring that cutting-edge science is conducted while also delivering practical, usable results for target groups outside academia. These different motivations within the consortium create a real challenge—but also an opportunity to bridge the gap between research and real-world impact.
- Digital tools are often seen as enablers of sustainability. In your view, what is their true potential? What specific challenges can they realistically address, and where do their limitations lie?
At Climate Media Factory, we’ve come to understand that climate media—whether video or digital tools—can only be part of a bigger, more holistic solution in transformation processes. What really interests us is: What can these tools contribute?
In that sense, CAST provides a comprehensive database and ensures that the data is interoperable and of the highest scientific standard. It gives users confidence that they’re working with reliable, high-quality information.
What digital tools can do: They can take care of the tedious groundwork that users would otherwise have to do themselves. They provide generic solutions that help fill the blank page when someone doesn’t know where to start. CAST, for example, can offer a solid baseline—giving users a starting point from which they can develop their own plans. It’s a great way to kick off climate action planning by offering two, three very different initial approaches that users can then remix, refine and improve.
What digital tools can’t do: They can’t offer perfectly fitting solutions, let alone put them into practice. At the end of the day, some person or team needs to be motivated to use the tools and turn plans into reality. And because in most real-world situations, some planning efforts are already underway, such digital tools need to be flexible and adaptive enough to integrate with existing processes.
The CAST, for example, is designed to help local administrations develop Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs).
A typical use-case for the CAST? Imagine a person working in a municipality who recently joined the Covenant of Mayors and is now tasked to create a Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan. This person shall now produce
- a baseline emissions inventory
- a risk, impact, and vulnerability assessment
- an energy poverty assessment
- and two sets of measures—one for adapting to climate impacts and another for reducing emissions,
but they lack the resources, experience, or team to do so. With the CAST, they can instantly generate a first draft—or even two or three different versions optimized for different goals. From there, the process can evolve into a co-creation effort within the administration or even beyond, helping to shape the final plan in a way that truly fits their community’s needs.
- As you work towards making the LOCALISED tool market-ready, what do you see as the biggest challenge in this process?
When it comes to the product, Research and Innovation actions in Horizon projects aren’t designed to bring solutions to a fully market-ready level. So, there’s still one final step needed to ensure the results meet the necessary quality standards for real-world use.
Another challenge is that the potential future users of this tool may not be the ones actually paying for it, which complicates its long-term viability. On top of that, maintaining an up-to-date database is resource-intensive, adding another layer of complexity to its sustainability.
- You have been involved in other projects with a similar scope like the Transition Pathway Explorer of the EUCalc project. Speaking from your experience, what are your recommendations for RethinkAction and future HORIZON projects?
With respect to exploitable results, my recommendation is: Dream big, but start small. Focus on building a minimum viable product first—one that delivers the core functionality that future users need most. Once that foundation is solid, you can gradually add extra features and nice-to-haves.
Thank you for the interview, Bernd!
