By Dr Nadia Nikolova-Deme, “Climateka”
Why do some European cities manage to turn climate goals into real change, while others struggle to go beyond individual projects? The reasons go far beyond funding. A study conducted במסגרת the European HANDS-ON project compares the readiness of the municipalities of Copenhagen, Parla and Vidin to manage the energy transition. The results highlight the importance of expert capacity, access to information and coordination between municipal departments.
What are the biggest obstacles facing Bulgarian municipalities, what can we learn from Copenhagen and where should change begin? We speak to Dr Nadia Nikolova-Deme from the Sofia Energy Agency SOFENA.
Why do municipalities play such an important role in the energy transition, and how do their decisions affect people’s daily lives?
We usually associate the energy and climate transition with major European goals, new technologies, renewable energy or infrastructure investment. Much of the real change takes place close to people: in their city, district and neighbourhood.
Municipalities manage many of the services and decisions that directly affect our daily lives – transport, public buildings, street lighting, housing policy and urban planning. That is why the way a municipality plans the energy transition affects air quality and the urban environment, energy costs, access to transport and heating, and opportunities for the development of the local economy.
As part of the HANDS-ON project, you are studying the Danish capital Copenhagen, the Spanish city of Parla and the Bulgarian city of Vidin. Why did you choose these particular places, and what does the comparison show?
The three municipalities allow us to examine different levels of institutional readiness for the energy transition.
Copenhagen represents a municipality with more advanced strategic planning, coordination mechanisms and a stronger culture of experimentation and cooperation between different sectors. Parla is an intermediate case: a municipality with ambition and growing awareness, but also with operational and resource constraints. Vidin is particularly interesting from a Bulgarian perspective. It shows the challenges faced by municipalities with limited administrative resources, insufficient technical expertise, fragmented coordination and difficult access to data at the local level. Together, the three examples outline different starting positions and support needs.
What are the most serious challenges facing Vidin, and do they differ from those faced by other Bulgarian municipalities?
Vidin clearly demonstrated that the problem is not limited to a lack of funds. The main challenges include limited administrative resources, insufficient technical expertise, difficult access to data at the local level and weak coordination between the different municipal departments.
Even when funding is available, the municipality must have enough experts, time and organisational capacity to identify specific problems, prepare a project, coordinate the participants, implement it and then evaluate the results. Without these conditions, funding may remain unused or lead only to a one-off project with no long-term impact.
Vidin is not an isolated case. Similar challenges can be found in other municipalities with limited human and administrative resources. Of course, we cannot generalise the results to all Bulgarian municipalities based on a single pilot case.
What makes Copenhagen better prepared for the energy transition, and which of its practices could be applied in Bulgaria?
Copenhagen demonstrates better strategic integration, more developed coordination mechanisms and greater capacity for experimentation and innovation. The culture of cooperation between different sectors is also important.
Bulgarian municipalities cannot directly copy Copenhagen, since the context, resources and scale are different. But they can apply some of its principles: better coordination between municipal departments, the systematic use of data in decision-making, the continuous involvement of citizens and stakeholders, and the opportunity to carry out small pilot projects from which the municipality can learn.
These approaches do not necessarily require huge investments. In some cases, change begins with the way the administration works together.
What are the most important capabilities Bulgarian municipalities need to develop in order to manage this type of transition successfully?
I would highlight three main areas:
Strategic and systemic planning. Municipalities must be able to look beyond a specific project and understand the links between energy, transport, housing, social policy, the economy and the climate.
Coordination and working with people. The energy transition cannot be the responsibility of a single department. Skills are needed to enable cooperation between different municipal departments, institutions, businesses, citizens and organisations.
The ability to learn and experiment. Not every approach works the first time. Municipalities need to test solutions on a small scale, measure the results and use what they have learned in their subsequent actions.
These skills correspond to the main gaps identified in the analysis.
In the study, you distinguish between three types of municipalities: administrators, learners and innovators. What do these categories mean, and where do Bulgarian municipalities fit in?
I would not place all Bulgarian municipalities in a single category, because there are major differences between them. But if we use the typology as a guide, a significant proportion of municipalities with limited resources are probably closer to the “Administrator” profile, while some are gradually moving towards the “Learner” profile.
The “Administrator” fulfils its duties, but often operates reactively, in line with existing procedures and funding opportunities.
The “Learning” municipality recognises the need for change, seeks new approaches and builds partnerships, but still faces difficulties in securing resources and scaling up successful solutions.
The “Innovator” has a stronger culture of experimentation, an integrated approach and a long-term strategic orientation.
This typology is not a label, but a way to understand what kind of support a given municipality needs and to offer suitable training to help it achieve the goals of the energy transition.
What are the risks if municipalities fail to build the necessary capacity?
The main risk is that the energy transition will remain at the level of individual projects instead of becoming a consistent policy. This may lead to missed funding opportunities, slower modernisation of buildings and infrastructure, higher energy costs and weaker competitiveness of the local economy.
There is also a social risk. If the transition is not well planned, the most vulnerable households may be left out of its benefits.
A municipality that develops the necessary capacity can turn the energy transition into an opportunity for a better urban environment, new investment, lower costs, higher-quality services and greater citizen participation. Gabrovo and Burgas stand out as leading examples of the energy transition in Bulgaria because they do not limit the green transformation to the construction of solar and other renewable energy capacity. The two cities are implementing models that involve local government, citizens, businesses, energy efficiency and European funding
How will the findings from the study be used in the next stage of the HANDS-ON project?
One of the most encouraging findings is that institutional capacity is not static. Municipalities can learn and change the way they work.
It is important to create conditions for knowledge-sharing, for departments to work together, for projects to be evaluated and for successful solutions to be implemented elsewhere as well.
That is why the next stage of the project is focused on practical training and capacity-building in areas such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, citizen participation, local energy communities, climate risks and sustainable mobility.
If you were speaking today to the mayor of a medium-sized Bulgarian municipality, what would be the first step you would recommend they take tomorrow?
I would recommend starting with the question: “What are the biggest energy and social problems facing our municipality, and do we have the necessary people and data to understand them and seek solutions?”
I would then recommend conducting a simple internal review: which people in the administration work on energy, transport, housing, urban planning and social policies, and how do they exchange information with one another? The next step is to identify several specific priorities and create a small team to work on them.
Sometimes the most important change begins when different people in the administration start working together on the same problem.
If Vidin and Copenhagen have the same goal – clean energy and climate neutrality – how can the distance between them be narrowed?
As the comparison between the two cities shows, the difference lies not only in financial resources, but also in the way municipalities plan and manage the energy transition.
That is why it is more important for Vidin to build its own capacity according to local conditions. This means investing in the people who manage change and gradually moving from reactive management towards long-term and strategic planning.
This is also the study’s main message: the clean energy transition is simultaneously a technological, social and institutional process. If we build the infrastructure but fail to develop the capacity of the people and institutions to manage it, we will not realise the full potential of the change.