We propose a programme of research leading to the establishment of a new methodology for surveying household energy use nationally, to complement existing methods (e.g., the English Housing Survey and regional equivalents), which leverages the rollout of Smart Meters to achieve cost-effective, detailed understanding of energy use behaviours. The key enablers of this new methodology are: 1) the Smart Meters themselves, 2) advances in semi-supervised disaggregation methods which can infer the behaviours that result in energy use, and 3) other wireless sensors placed in some households to bootstrap the disaggregation methods. The output will be twofold: a validated scalable novel survey method suitable for national rollout, providing significant additional data on energy consumption in UK homes; and 2) an assessment of which variables can be effectively surveyed with this method.

The aim of this project is to visualise information from climate change models so that it can be displayed on an internet "game" called the the 2050 Global Calculator. The aim of the Global Calculator is to energise and inform discussion about energy and climate choices in the lead-up to the UNFCCC climate negotiations in Paris in 2015. The Global Calculator lets you make decisions about the energy system in 2050: should we use lots of nuclear power, or insulate our houses, or become vegetarian? The impact of these choices is then shown in terms of carbon emissions and the effect on the global climate. In the early stages of constructing the Global Calculator, we have already learnt a lot about the different expectations of climate scientists and of policy-makers from the Department for Energy and Climate Change. The target audience for the web tool is businesspeople, who will probably have different expectations again. So what we want to do is to use the Global Calculator to demonstrate those differences, and work towards finding a system that will help all of us to communicate better. That means helping climate scientists design experiments that give answers that are directly relevant for real-world decisions, and helping decision-makers to understand the limits of climate information, so they don't ask for the impossible. Providing a forum for feedback and constructive discussion, by starting this conversation around the Global Calculator, will improve the use of climate information in business and policy.

In this proposal we aim to work with our partner the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to gather evidence on the extent of recourse to patent protection in the UK economy, the use of patents by firms and on the strategies being used by firms to manage their IP and circumvent the problems caused by overlapping patent rights or 'patent thickets'. We bring new academic thinking on these issues (in the US and UK) to bear on a small scale survey where the user community is involved in generating and gathering the data needed by them. By doing this we will be able to plug important evidentiary gaps about the recourse to patenting for innovative firms and also the use of patents though licensing and cross-licensing in the UK-wide economy. In addition a detailed survey of UK IP management practices based on similar surveys conducted in the US will enable a deeper understanding of the patent thicket question as well the measures UK firms are taking to gain 'freedom to operate'. We expect that this understanding of IP management practices will be a valuable input in IPOs training programs to raise awareness in small and medium firms and can also inform IP policy in the UK.

This award supports the scientific activities of the Co-chair of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scientific members of the Technical Support Unit (TSU). The TSU is co-located at Imperial College London and the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA). IPCC is a world body which provides policymakers with assessments of the science of climate change, its impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC offers policymakers a snapshot of what the scientific community understands rather than promoting a particular view. IPCC sets out options from which policymakers may choose in pursuit of their goals, but it does not tell governments what to do. Assessment involves a structured approach to interpreting that knowledge and a synthesis of the scientific findings which in itself constitutes a substantial contribution to knowledge. IPCC operates through three Working Groups (WGs). WG III is concerned with climate change mitigation, i.e. reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and removing them from the atmosphere. Prof Jim Skea was elected co-chair of WG III in October 2015 for a period of seven years along with Prof PR Shukla of IIMA. Their task is to produce the WG III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, to contribute to the Synthesis Report along with other WGs, to contribute to a Special Report on the implications of keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees as requested by the UN Climate Convention, and to lead the production of a further special Report on climate change and aspects of land use. Co-chairs coordinate the efforts of hundreds of volunteer authors to produce these reports and gain approval for the final reports from IPCC governments. They are backed up by a TSU comprising scientists and other support staff. For the first time, the WG III TSU is co-located at the institutions of the developed and developing country co-chairs. This award provides support for Professor Jim Skea, the UK co-chair, and members of the scientific staff located in London. A parallel award from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), includes official development assistance (ODA) and covers operations and communications costs in London and posts at IIMA. WG III's work covers all aspects of energy, including energy supply technologies, energy demand, energy infrastructure and whole energy systems approaches. The reports also covers agriculture, forestry and land use. To meet this remit, IPCC contributors include physical scientists and engineers but also those from the biological sciences, economists and other social scientists. The scope of IPCC WG III products is wide and they are interdisciplinary in character. The Special Reports on 1.5 degrees and land use, involving collaboration across Working Groups, are exceptionally interdisciplinary. To deliver the products, the co-chairs and the TSU must: scope and set the scientific framework for reports in consultation with governments and other stakeholders; select authors to contribute to the drafting; engage with authors to ensure that the quality of individual report chapter is assured; ensure that review comments by experts and governments are addressed to adequately; lead the drafting of the Summaries for Policymakers which are the most high-profile IPCC outputs; and steer the reports through approval sessions of IPCC involving all member governments. IPCC's activities have a major impact on climate change policy nationally and internationally. The widely cited reports have influenced the development of the UN Climate Convention and are used to inform national policy-making. This award enables the UK and UK science to have a significant influence on climate policy nationally and internationally through the framing and direction provided by the co-chairs and through the efforts of the many UK researchers who will be mobilised to contribute to IPCC.

This Knowledge Exchange fellowship has two strands i. The Engagement focus aims to increase government use of academic work, by increased engagement between BIS and NIESR through a) a series of seminars for policy people, b) review of processes for government research and data management, and c) improved communication of the policy perspective. ii. The Research focus aims to undertake analysis of firm level data and explore the potential to extend the findings in the literature in order a) to gain greater impact on policy development from academic knowledge, and b) identify and develop potential for further policy relevant research from these areas of NIESR expertise. The Engagement focus of the project contains different elements: a. Seminars. NIESR has agreed to arrange a series of 4 seminars on BIS policy topics over the 12 months of the fellowship. These will involve experts from the academic community, including ESRC centres such as SKOPE, and will be open to government officials from BIS and other departments. The topics are likely to include areas such as macro-economic projections, migration and the labour market, and sources of productivity gain. b. Research and data processes. The opportunity of the Fellowship will be used to improve academic links with government processes for research and data where possible. The aim is to develop and provide greater feedback to academic bidders on the features of weaker bids, and how to strengthen them. c. Policy context. As well as policy relevant seminars, other steps will be taken to ensure that BIS priorities are conveyed to the academic community. The approach will be to arrange a workshop for academics, hosted by NIESR, and invite policy leads from government to provide feedback on what has worked for them. The Research focus will use firm-level micro-data to explore the relation between the dynamic economy (firms closing and opening, growing and contracting, improving and declining) and productivity, the labour market, and one or more of skills, innovation, high growth firms, sectors and clusters. The approach is to explore the potential of these data for greater insight and impact, rather than direct data analysis - in recognition of the challenges presented by the patchy documentation, and inconsistent data records. The starting point is the finding that the great majority of productivity gain arises from 'external restructuring' of firms or plants (80-90% of Total Factor Productivity according to Disney et al (2003), and greater according to Harris and Moffat (2012). At first sight this seems surprising - it suggests that little productivity gain occurs within existing firms or plants. The implication is sometimes drawn that economic churn amongst firms is the route for growth rather than improvement within firms. The picture could in fact be different. The empirical literature appears to focus mainly on churn among plants rather than firms and there is little detail on how much of the gain occurs between plants but within firms, and how much between firms. This is the first question that will be explored. The second stage will consider how this decomposition varies over time, under different macro-economic circumstances. The literature suggests there is some but not much variation. One would expect the components of change to differ at times of growth from times of contraction or recession. The third stage will assess the feasibility of separating the decomposition by firm size, as churn is likely to operate rather differently for small firms than for middle or larger ones. Policy on investment in areas such as skills or innovation will be informed and influenced by the findings. The fourth stage will explore the potential for future work in one or more policy areas - skills and training (building on work by Haskel et al 2003, Dearden et al 2005, and Galindo-Rueda et al 2005), in innovation, or employment.