After seven years, the EU-funded project POCITYF is coming to an end. But its legacy could live much longer: “Heritage and decarbonisation can go hand in hand,” says its coordinator. The challenge now is scaling up proven solutions across Europe.

Europe has set itself an ambitious target: become the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050. And cities will be central to its success. Home to more than half of the world’s population and responsible for around 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, urban areas are major contributors to the problem — but they could also become powerful drivers of the solution.

“From a technological perspective, we have more or less what is necessary,” says João Cravinho, R&D engineer and project manager at Portuguese energy company EDP. The bigger challenge, he argues, is turning available solutions into action, demonstrating that they work and, crucially, scaling them up.

Cities offer a particularly fertile testing ground. From buildings and public spaces to mobility, energy and urban planning, local authorities can influence where solutions are deployed and how citizens take part. And for Cravinho, “there is no sustainability without their direct involvement”.

It is precisely this potential of cities that POCITYF, the EU-funded project coordinated by Cravinho, has been exploring over the past seven years. At its heart are positive energy districts — a somewhat technical term for a simple ambition: creating city blocks, districts or areas that generate more energy than they consume.


But POCITYF is far from alone in pursuing that goal. So, what makes its approach different?

There are two aspects to that. First, POCITYF deals with historic and protected cities, which cannot be altered and where the constraints on implementing new technologies are usually quite significant. The other aspect is integration. Our aim wasn’t to install a technology and simply see what value it could bring, but to see how, coupled with another and then another, it could produce a more effective and tangible outcome than isolated solutions.


Combining decarbonisation solutions with the preservation of historic centres and cultural heritage: can these two goals really go hand in hand?

Absolutely. One of the main outcomes of this project, and its main message, is that the two are not incompatible at all. Both of our demonstrator cities – or lighthouse cities, as we called them in POCITYF – are historic, protected cities. Alkmaar in the Netherlands and Évora here in Portugal have city centres that are subject to significant constraints, which can severely limit the implementation of new technologies. But we proved that there are technologies already on the market that can not only preserve their heritage but also increase their capacity to generate renewable energy locally. For example, during the first year of monitoring, both lighthouse cities achieved significant levels of energy self-supply, reaching up to around 50% in Alkmaar and approximately 20% in Évora. This shows that historic cities can reduce their carbon footprint and become more sustainable. So, from a technological perspective, it is more than feasible. What we need now is actual implementation.


What can other European cities learn from these pilots?

We can draw some conclusions from both cities, but replicating their solutions cannot simply mean taking exactly what has been done in Évora or Alkmaar and implementing it elsewhere. They first have to be contextualised and adapted to the local environment. And that’s what we have done with our six fellow cities across Europe: Bari in Italy; Celje, in Slovenia; Granada, in Spain; Hvidovre, in Denmark; Ioannina, in Greece; and Újpest, in Hungary. In the end, what we have developed is a methodological approach to understand, for each city and each specific context, which demonstration activities and solutions could be replicated.


What’s the main lesson for urban planners and decision-makers?

Urban transition requires active political commitment. There needs to be a real commitment to implementing and piloting solutions, but also to urban planning itself. To understand the local context and what your city actually needs, you need the right structures and sound urban planning. And then it also taught us that historic cities cannot be left behind. Évora and Alkmaar faced different difficulties and challenges, but together they have shown that historic cities can become more sustainable and be part of this transition, despite their unique constraints.


Your project started seven years ago. After such a long journey, what has changed most?

Seeing the results of the implementation first-hand drew the attention of cities, municipalities and the people working there. It showed them that this wasn’t just some crazy idea, but something that was actually feasible and could have positive impacts — not only economic or environmental, but social as well. Seeing what actual implementation can deliver was the trigger needed for these municipalities, to show them that the transition is possible and achievable. But they now need to maintain their commitment and ambition, and keep pursuing these goals.


Nelson Mandela is often quoted as saying, “I never lose. I either win or learn.” Did you win or learn?

Both. Buildings we thought could not be touched were upgraded while remaining protected. Solar technologies were installed without altering their external appearance, allowing them to produce energy for local consumption or sharing. Other solutions did not perform as well as expected, but even then we learned a lot. We found, for example, that certain batteries coupled with PV systems were not as effective as we had expected, or did not provide the value we had initially anticipated because of different constraints. But we also learned a lot about planning, about how to take advantage of unused building areas to generate renewable energy within historic city centres, and about how to reach citizens. These lessons learned are less tangible, but extremely valuable outcomes.


What needs to happen now to accelerate urban decarbonisation?

Regulatory frameworks need to be dynamic and flexible enough to support innovation. They provide the groundwork for the long-term transformation of our cities. Cities, for their part, need commitment and ambition. If their targets are not ambitious enough, they risk stopping halfway. And citizens need to be active, act collectively and participate in urban transition initiatives such as energy-sharing schemes. These cannot simply be created by someone else: citizens need to participate actively, look for these opportunities and sometimes even help build them from scratch.


Your project is now coming to an end, but its solutions and the knowledge it has developed are meant to live on. What legacy will it leave?

Four things, especially. The first, when it comes to historic cities, is the knowledge we have gained and the lessons we have learned. The second is our methodological approach to replicating these smart-city solutions. The third is the network: the project brought together 49 consortium members, but we also interacted with many other organisations, municipalities and smart-city project groups. And finally, there is the confidence we have given cities that they can do better and reach their climate goals. Ultimately, our main message to them is that their historic character is not an obstacle to their transition. The two can go hand in hand, and we have demonstrated that.


Article by Diego Giuliani