|
To download the entire document in Microsoft Word format (615K),
click here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDGEC Scientific Planning
Committee
Preface
Summary
Introduction and Welcome
Session I:
Introduction to the IDGEC and CMRA
Theme 1: Institutional Issues Related
to the Administering the Current Climate Regime
Session 2: Internation and National
Implications of the Kyoto Mechanisms
Session 3: Climate Regimes and
Sustainable Development
Theme
II: The (Re)Design of the Climate Regime Through 2005 and Beyond
Session
4: Compliance and Long Term Implementation
Session
5: Adjustment and Learning Processes in the Climate Change Regime
Session 6: Linkages and Organizational Issues
Conclusions
Appendix A: IDGEC Carbon Management Research
Activity Scoping Report
Appendix B: List of Participants
Appendix C: International Climate
Change Regime Simulation Proposal
|
Session 1: Introduction
Session Chair:
Dr. Jill Jaeger, International Human Dimensions Programme On Global
Environmental Change (IHDP)
Presenters:
Dr. Oran Young, Chairman, Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental
Change, Dartmouth College
Granville Sewell, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
An Introduction to the IDGEC
and the CMRA
Dr. Oran Young
Chairman
Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
Dartmouth College
My role here is to provide a very brief overview of the Institutional
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change project as a context for
this workshop and to tell you a little about the IDGEC flagship
research activities, of which the Carbon Management Research Activity
is one. I will talk about three questions:
- What is the IDGEC?
- What are IDGEC Flagship Activities?
- What are the goals of this meeting?
Others who follow me will then focus more specifically on introducing
the Carbon Management Research Activity.
The IDGEC
The IDGEC is a long-term, large scale, international research
project that is operating under the auspices of the International
Human Dimensions Program (IHDP). Figure 1 provides some sense of
the broad perspective of this project. The IDGEC is focused on the
role of institutions both in causing large-scale environmental problems
and as responses or partial solutions to large-scale environmental
problems. We are concerned with the ways in which institutions create
incentives or influence behavior that may be problematic from an
environmental point of view. This includes, for example, ''the tragedy
of the commons," where externalities arise from private property
systems. It then looks at institutional responses to these problems.
Much of what we will be talking about today and tomorrow will be
on the institutional response side of the picture in the sense that
we are looking at international regimes or international institutional
arrangements and how they get implemented not only at the international
level but domestically in a number of countries to determine whether
they are able to move us towards the objectives of the regime, in
this case controlling or regulating emissions of greenhouse gases.
The IDGEC as a whole has what we would call a crosscutting perspective.
Instead of being a project that focuses only on climate change,
for example, it is a project that focuses on the institutional dimensions
of a variety of different kinds of large-scale environmental problems.
As such, it has a number of research foci. As shown in Figure
2, these include:
- What roles do institutions in causing and confronting global
environmental changes?
- Why are some responses to global environmental changes more
successful than others?
- What are the prospects for designing or redesigning institutions
to confront global environmental changes?
This translates into what we call the hierarchy of research foci
shown in Figure 3. These are, in a sense, our fundamental science
questions. They include the problems of causality, performance and
design. We want to know how much of the variance in biophysical
systems, are attributable to the influence and impact of institutions.
Why are some institutional responses to environmental problems more
successful than others? How can we structure institutions to be
more successful? These are the basic science questions of the entire
project, and we all always asking ourselves, with some prodding
from our friends at IHDP, if we are able to provide better answers
to these questions, not only with respect to climate change but
with respect to large-scale environmental change in general.
IDGEC Flagship Research Activities
To address these research questions, the IDGEC is moving forward
with a number of flagship research activities. These are core research
projects that would allow us to move toward that goal or objective
of better answers to the science questions. The flagship activities
can be thought of as research "streams." They are flows
of coordinated or collaborative research projects that have a number
of defining research characteristics or futures. They are, first
of all, directly relevant to the IDGEC science questions. They are
designed in such a way as to give us better opportunities to answer
the three causality, performance and design questions. They are
issue areas that seem to us in our best judgment to be ripe for
focused research such that we can push forward in a timely fashion.
They are projects that are interesting to leading social scientists,
including people who have necessarily been focusing on environmental
issues or environmental change in the past but whose main concerns
are to increase our generic or general knowledge of institutions.
We want to draw in these people to focus some of their attention
on these environmental questions. But at the same time they are
issues that are likely to lead to results that are policy-relevant.
We want to be able to contribute significantly to the kinds of concerns
that Mr. Hamanaka and his colleagues are wrestling with in the context
of the COP process. They are also issues that are of interest to
several members of the IDGEC Scientific Steering Committee.
Based on these criteria, we have in the project, at this stage,
three distinct flagship activities. The Carbon Management Research
Activity is one of them. Along with the Carbon Management we have
a project called the Performance of Exclusive Economic Zones that
is looking at issues of ocean and marine governance. The third flagship
activity deals with the political economy of boreal and tropical
forests. In this project we are trying to understand the institutional
forces at work and shaping outcomes with respect to forest management
and issues of biodiversity and so on. We may at some stage have
additional flagship activities, but this is the basic group of activities
at this point.
Goals of the Workshop
The goals of this workshop are to move from paper to practice,
to move from a planning process into an active flow or stream of
research. This workshop occurs at a very strategic point in the
life cycle or the trajectory of the project. We have engaged in
a fairly large-scale and lengthy science planning process. We are
now ready to drive this project forward into the actual conduct
of the research. We see this workshop as an absolutely critical
step, and we will judge our success in terms of the degree to which
it contributes to making this transition and moving forward into
the substance of the research agenda. We believe that it is critical
to have the right balance between what we call a common structure
and personal niches. In other words, we are looking for a flow of
research that is operating within a common structure that will allow
us to compare and contrast the results and build cumulative knowledge
rather than a collection of loosely-related findings. However, this
common structure should at the same time allow individual participants
ample opportunity to use their own creativity and find their place
within this common structure.
We also want outcomes that are relevant to what social scientists
call the "New Institutionalism," that shed light on the
larger institutional questions. We are particularly interested in
this context in finding ways to bridge the gap between the natural
sciences and the social sciences. We believe that in looking at
the institutional dimensions of large-scale environmental change,
we need to find ways to bring together collaboratively the natural
sciences and the social sciences.
This is a process that I am happy to say now seems to be on a good
track. Our relations with our counterparts in the International
Geosphere-Biosphere program are improving and our relations with
people in the IPCC are strong. But we now need to really make progress
in this area. I am delighted that people like Pep Canadell of the
IGBP are a part of this workshop, and I am delighted that the Institutions
project is very much connected to the cross-cutting theme on carbon
that is being developed by the IHDP and the IGBP. We want to contribute
to and strengthen these linkages.
Finally, we want to add to the so-called "usable" knowledge
that will be seen not just as an academic exercise but knowledge
that will be seen as contributing in a very clear and direct way
to the world's troubles. We want to make a strong input into understanding,
for example, in the case of climate change, the pros and cons and
strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of emissions trading
systems, different kinds of joint implementation, different kinds
of carbon sequestration. I am delighted to be able to say that we
have opened up a good dialogue with the FCCC Secretariat to discuss
their needs and our research capabilities.
This should give you a little sense of the larger context and
the general goals that we are trying to achieve at this meeting.
I will now turn over the floor to the next speaker who will bring
this set of general goals down to an even more concrete level and
tell us about the kind of things that we need to be thinking about
in the next few days. Thank you.
Figure 2. IDGEC Research Foci
Focus 1: What roles do institutions play in causing and confronting
global environmental changes?
1.1 What is the role of environmental and resource regimes in
causing/confronting global environmental changes?
1.2 What is the role of other institutions (e.g., trade and
investment regimes) in causing/confronting global environmental
changes?
1.3 What factors determine the resilience of institutions in
the face of global environmental changes?
Focus 2: Why are some institutional responses to global environmental
changes more successful than others?
2.1 Are there common features or elements of (un)successful
institutional responses?
2.2 What factors threaten the development or the survival of
institutional responses?
2.3 What unintended consequences do institutional responses
produce?
Focus 3: What are the prospects for (re)designing institutions
to confront environmental changes?
3.1 What are the (dis)advantages of creating new institutions
versus reforming existing institutions?
3.2 How can we incorporate flexibility, self-correcting procedures
and social learning processes in environmental institutions?
3.3 What are the relative merits of (1) formal arrangements
vs. informal social practices, (2) hard law vs. soft law arrangements,
(3) alternative decision rules, and (4) alternative funding
mechanisms?
3.4 Can we integrate environmental and economic institutions
at different stages of societal development?
Source: IDGEC Scientific Planning Committee
An Overview of the Carbon Management Research
Activity
Granville Sewell
Research Fellow
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thank you. The purpose of my talk today is to give you a brief
overview of the IDGEC's Carbon Management Research Activity Scoping
Report. In doing so, I will focus primarily on describing the two
CMRA research themes and the core questions that will be explored
in each theme. I will also talk a little bit about CMRA organization
and linkages that will be made with other projects and programs.
The Carbon Management Research Activity (CMRA) is a flagship activity
of the International Human Dimensions Program's (IHDP) long-term
project on the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental
Change (IDGEC). The purpose of this activity is to investigate the
critical near- and long-term institutional issues associated with
controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the cause of global climate
change.
As you all know, the international community has embarked on an
effort to develop a global regime to address climate change. Two
international treaties, the Framework Convention on Climate Change
and the Kyoto Protocol, currently form the core of this regime.
CMRA research will be directed towards two "themes" important
to policymakers and researchers that are associated with this regime.
Because the international community is particularly concerned with
the nearer-term issues of implementing the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol,
the first CMRA theme explores those institutional issues associated
with administering these existing agreements. The second theme focuses
on the longer-term issues of learning and adjusting the climate
regime to changes in technology, scientific understanding, and global
socioeconomic conditions.
Theme 1: Administering the Current Climate Regime
The first substantive area of CMRA is concerned with the nearer-term
institutional issues associated with administering the FCCC and
the Kyoto Protocol. With the FCCC in force and the Protocol in the
process of ratification, both Annex I and developing countries are
moving forward with the development and implementation of measures
to meet their commitments. For Annex I countries, this includes
not only the development of policies to reduce emissions from sources
and enhance sinks and reservoirs, but also the development, transfer,
and diffusion of environmentally-sound technologies, practices,
and processes to developing countries.
Annex I countries can adopt a range of market-based and regulatory
policy instruments to meet these commitments. Some are "market"-based
in that they use economic forces to change behavior, while others
employ the more traditional regulatory approach. The particular
mix of these instruments that countries ultimately adopt depends
very much on their national circumstances. The degree to which these
instruments are effective in mitigating climate change will be a
function of mix of the instruments adopted, the design and implementation
of the policies themselves, and the institutional framework within
which they must operate.
The development and administration of this regime is complicated
by the Protocol's call for the development of three interlocking
"flexibility" mechanisms. The clean development mechanism
(CDM), joint implementation (JI) and emissions trading (ET) will
allow Annex I countries to obtain some a portion of their required
reductions through collaborative efforts with other countries. The
role that the Protocol establishes for private sector in the development
and operation of these mechanisms also adds complexity to the regime,
as it will require the private and public sectors to interact on
an unprecedented scale. The governments remain the responsible parties
in the regime, however, and the system through which any emissions
trading will occur, while market oriented, will be constrained by
domestic and international institutions established by these governments.
These constraints include the rules that the international community
adopts governing the operation of the Kyoto mechanisms, the rules
each country creates to manage the exchange of permits domestically
and internationally, and the interactions among these different
international and domestic institutions.
To explicate these complexities and their ramifications, the CMRA
will explore two related sets of institutional issues. The first
of these concerns the international and national implications of
the development of the Kyoto mechanisms. As the CDM, JI and ET are
developed, institutional questions will need to be addressed concerning
both interactions among the operational international rules and
interactions between these international rules and concomitant national
rules. The development of these mechanisms will also raise institutional
issues about the mix of and effectiveness of policy instruments
that nations adopt. For example, the Protocol specifies that units
of emissions reductions acquired through emissions trading are to
be supplemental to domestic action. However, the international community
has not yet agreed on a definition of the term 'supplemental', and
each of the options being considered could substantially alter the
nature and mix of policies instruments that different countries
choose to adopt. Finally, important questions arise concerning whether
or not these mechanisms are to function as the primary means for
the transfer of technology to developing countries and how technologies
being transferred through these mechanisms can be screened to ensure
their appropriateness and long-term effectiveness.
A second set of issues involves how the mix of market-based and
regulatory measures adopted to implement these agreements could
affect the regime's objectives of promoting sustainable development
and protecting the global climate in a cost-effective manner. For
example, the implementation of the Kyoto mechanisms could have a
substantial impact on the balance between emissions reductions and
carbon sequestration efforts. Because carbon sequestration measures
are perceived as being less costly than emissions reduction measures,
the number of carbon sequestration activities is likely to increase
substantially as countries move forward to implement the FCCC and
the Kyoto Protocol. Issues associated with this increase, as well
as those associated with deforestation and land use changes, are
of particular concern to developing countries. The relationship
between the regime's two objectives is also not clear. While they
are not necessarily incompatible, rules adopted to implement one
objective can create conflicts with the other. For example, the
choice of rules governing supplementarity could have important implications
for the sustainable development path of Annex I countries. Similarly,
rules restricting the use of ODA for CDM investments could force
developing countries to choose between emission reduction/sequestration
measures and other development objectives.
CMRA research under this first theme will be focused on two core
questions:
· What are the implications of this market-oriented climate
change regime for operation of the Kyoto mechanisms and the mix
and effectiveness of policy instruments adopted by national governments?
· What are the implications of the emerging regime, and
of the mix of market-based and regulatory measures adopted under
it, in terms of climate protection and sustainable development?
Research efforts conducted under this theme would focus on a number
of specific research questions derived from these core questions.
Examples of these research questions might include:
· How will international rules governing each of the
Kyoto mechanisms affect the administration of the others?
· How do the rules governing this regime affect the development
and implementation of policy measures in different countries?
· How do these rules affect the development, transfer and
diffusion of environmentally sound technologies, practices and
processes?
· What are the relative merits of market-based versus regulatory
instruments in the context of the regime?
· What are the implications of differences among these
national and international rules for the effectiveness of the
climate change regime and the goal of sustainable development?
Theme 2: The Long-Term Evolution of the Climate Regime
The second theme of the CMRA focuses on issues associated with the
evolution and redesign of the climate regime over time. Research
efforts under this theme will explore the longer-term questions
about the regime's adjustment to both national experiences with
its implementation and changes in technology, scientific understanding,
and global socioeconomic conditions.
The CMRA will again explore two sets of institutional under this
theme. The first of these concerns compliance and the long-term
implementation of the climate regime. The relationship between international
compliance mechanisms and the processes through which domestic policy
change occurs is not well understood. As we all know, most industrialized
countries committed in 1994 to reducing their emissions to 1990
levels by the end of the decade. Emissions have continued to rise
unabated, however, due in part to a failure by these countries to
implement fully the policies they proposed to meet these commitments.
Because implementation is difficult, an understanding of how nations
make policy changes in response to international treaties and which
factors influence this process is crucial to the effective design
and long-term evolution of the climate change regime. Compliance
issues such as liability that are associated with the emissions-trading
mechanism and the role of the private sector are also particularly
important.
The second set of longer-term issues on which the CMRA will focus
concerns the processes through which regimes to adapt to changing
technology, scientific understanding, and global socioeconomic conditions.
All regimes must adapt to changing circumstances and underlying
conditions if they are to persist. This is particularly important
for regimes addressing large-scale environmental problems such as
climate change, as these problems involve poorly understood, complex
systems that are subject to rapid, nonlinear change over short time
frames. Because the processes through which international regimes
are negotiated unfold over years to decades, opportunities exist
for learning and adaptation. For the case of climate change, the
processes through which national climate change policies are developed
and implemented have also been found to foster learning and adaptation.
Questions remain, however, as to how changes in science and socioeconomic
conditions is best incorporated into the regime, as well as the
role of environmental and business interests, the media and the
public in overall learning and adaptation process.
The core questions regarding this theme are:
· What are the essential factors shaping compliance with
and long-term implementation of the evolving climate change regime?
· How can flexibility, self-correcting procedures, and
social learning processes be incorporated into the evolving climate
change regime?
Some of the specific issues that could be explored under these
core questions include:
· How have coalitions of interests at the national and
international levels shaped the development and implementation
of national climate change policies?
· How does the unique role of the private sector in this
regime affect compliance and implementation?
· How might the regime be redesigned to better promote
compliance and implementation?
· How effective are current processes and procedures in
informing decision-makers at the national and sub-national levels
about the science of climate change?
· What are the roles of the media, interest groups, and
the public in learning and adaptation process at both the national
and international levels?
Analytical approaches, Organization and Linkages
I should say something briefly here about analytical approaches,
organization, and linkages for the CMRA. We anticipate that research
efforts conducted under the CMRA will employ a range of analytical
techniques, including quantitative studies, modeling, and structured
case studies. To narrow the scope of the project and to maximize
the potential for comparative analyses, emphasis will be placed,
where appropriate, on the Arctic and Southeast Asia, the IDGEC's
two core regions, and on the international, national, and local
efforts to enhance GHG reservoirs and sinks. We recognize, however,
that this focus may not be appropriate for investigations into such
issues as compliance. We anticipate that CMRA research will be initiated
and conducted through a network of researchers and research institutions
with expertise in fields relevant to the institutional questions
being examined, and the CMRA Scientific Steering Committee and the
IDGEC International Program Office will work together ensuring that
CMRA research projects are coordinated both with each other and
with other relevant research efforts through workshops, formal and
informal meetings, and other means of communications. Finally, the
IDGEC will undertake the CMRA through extensive collaboration with
other projects, including activities being undertaken by the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), the World Climate Research Program
(WCRP), and other programs of the International Human Dimensions
Program (IHDP), as well as policy research efforts being undertaken
by the FCCC Secretariat, non-profit organizations, and industry
groups.
|
Session 1
Introduction to the IDGEC
and CMRA
An Overview of the Carbon Management
Research Activity
|