Co-production of knowledge about climate generates gains for the electricity sector.
Project involving Unicamp and Unifesp explores the potential of transdisciplinarity
Every year, the dry season sets off alarm bells in the Brazilian electricity sector. The country has an electricity grid that is 85% renewable, 52% of which is generated by hydroelectric plants, according to data from April 2025 from the National Electric Energy Agency (Aneel). However, the power that comes from the rivers depends on the rainfall pattern. If reservoir levels fall below the ideal level for generating energy, thermoelectric plants come into action, making the process more expensive. Consumers feel these effects in their pockets. In May 2025, for example, the energy tariff flag turned yellow. This means that for every 100 kWh (kilowatt-hour) consumed, distributors charged an additional R$1,885. Adopted in 2015 by Aneel, the tariff flag system informs how much electricity generation becomes more expensive due to the lack of rain.
The planning of the entire power generation and transmission system, through the National Interconnected System (SIN), is the responsibility of the National Electric System Operator (ONS), which must take into account climate information and weather forecasts. This requires an exchange of information and experiences with experts and research bodies in this area. The greater the collaboration and joint production of knowledge and tools, the more efficient the work of the body and the more beneficial the results and practical applications of the research.
These were the lessons learned from the Climate Services Through Knowledge Co-Production (Climax) project – an initiative supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) that brings together European and South American research institutions to develop the co-production of scientific data and climate tools, strengthening sectors such as agriculture in Argentina and the electricity system in Brazil by making them more resilient to adverse climate events and contexts.
Through meetings, workshops , and discussion groups, researchers were able to assess the gains and obstacles in the effort to promote transdisciplinarity between sectors – in the Brazilian case, between the National System Operator (ONS) and the Center for Weather Forecasting and Climate Studies (CPTEC) of the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe). The results of the study, conducted over five years by Jean Carlos Hochsprung Miguel – professor at the Institute of Geosciences (IG) of Unicamp – and by researchers from the Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp) and Inpe, were published in the journal Climate Services.
Meeting of cultures
Miguel’s involvement with the Climax project began as a scientist in the field of sociology of science and technology. The plan was to create channels capable of facilitating the process through which science provides the basis for decision-making in the development of public policies and for the appropriation of technologies by institutions. “It is important to know that science and society are not in a linear relationship, in which scientific knowledge is produced and has immediate results and social benefits at the end,” he said. In the case of the project’s execution in Brazil, Miguel argues that the co-production of knowledge implied establishing cooperation between the ONS and CPTEC so that, based on an understanding of how climate information is used, scientific production in the sector could occur more assertively. “Climax was an innovative project in the country because it was based on the principle that we need to understand the context in which scientific information is used to develop research projects.”
The project stages included building a common research agenda among the participants, integrating knowledge and expertise , realigning goals and expectations, and evaluating the results. This involved professionals and specialists from ONS and CPTEC, as well as scholars in the social sciences responsible for assessing how the exchange of knowledge occurred and for devising the best strategies to promote this integration. “It’s about the challenge of being between distinct professional and epistemic cultures,” summarized Miguel, recalling several episodes that highlighted the lack of communication between the development of research and the potential users of the knowledge and technologies produced. “Surprising things emerged during the project. What was thought to be produced with one utility presented biases towards a completely different use.”
According to the researchers, the greatest advances achieved through the project consisted of expanding the participants’ knowledge, understanding how climate science is produced and used, and interaction between different areas through a common research vocabulary. However, the scientists identified the existence of institutional and organizational barriers to co-production, since this would imply changes in academic and professional cultures. According to the professor, the co-production did not result in a technological tool that could be used by the ONS. “But we raised the standard of interpretation and climatological knowledge about the tools used. This is already a real gain.”
In addition to increasing the resilience of the energy sector in Brazil, the promotion of projects based on co-production plays an important role in drawing attention to the benefits and limitations involved in carrying out truly transdisciplinary science. According to Miguel, this also involves the way in which large scientific projects are designed and their financing and management models, which require long-term initiatives and new ways of measuring results. “We need to take transdisciplinarity seriously, from start to finish,” argues the researcher.