Block 7: Environmental institutions and learning Flashcards
Institutions
the formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ that shape individual and group behaviour.
This may include visible organisations such as national states, the EU or the UN.
But also less visible though influential institutions such as markets, formal and informal policy-science interfaces and laws.
Policy-science interface represents a process to translate science into conclusions that can inform specific questions of policy.
Advocacy coalition framework (ACF)
According to the ACF, policy change over time is a function of the interaction of advocacy coalitions, changes external to the subsystem and effects of changes in relatively stable system parameters.
Advocacy coalition
An advocacy coalition consists of actors from a variety of positions and institutions who share a particular belief system, and who show a nontrivial degree of parallel action over time.
Policy oriented learning
Relatively enduring changes of thought or behaviour that result from experience and are concerned with changing public policy
What are problem structures? Name 4 problem structures from very structured to unstructured
○ The relationship between contents and process in a policy problem.
○ Structured problems: § Problems characterised by consensus on what knowledge is relevant and what values are at stake. ○ Moderately structured problems: § Problems characterised by consensus on the values, but uncertainty and conflict as regards the best way to realise common ends. ○ Badly structured problems: § A conflict between irreconcilable values, but possible consent on knowledge. ○ Unstructured problems: Problems characterised by uncertai
name two trends in environmental policy
In environmental policy there is both a trend towards technocratisation of environmental policy institutions and an attempt to involve stakeholders in the productions and evaluations of knowledge for policy (in order to alleviate the contested character of the knowledge).
Assignment 7.1
see book
The united Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (uNFCCC) aims to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system. The uNFCCC’s ‘scientific advisory board’ is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). one of the uNFCCC
products is the Kyoto Protocol (1997), which was initially ratified by all uNFCCC countries except the uS, Australia and Russia, who were afraid
that their economies would be adversely affected. The Kyoto Protocol defined greenhouse gas emission cuts for 2012. The Conference of Parties (CoP) in Cancun, one of the uNFCCC summits, dealt with the
‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ of the uNFCCC countries, i.e. who should contribute what to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change after 2012. Countries like
China and India refused to commit themselves to emissions targets, because they had hardly contributed to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations since the industrial revolution, while the uS argued that these countries also have to contribute to mitigation because their current share is significant. The Eu took an intermediate position.
Apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change (Fig. 14.1) to the international decision-making process about climate change. Provide examples of ‘Coalition A’ and ‘Coalition B’, and their strategies
regarding guidance instruments. Who are the ‘Policy brokers’ and the ‘Sovereigns’ (= decision-makers: see Fig. 14.1)?
Can you explain the coalitions on the basis of the ‘relatively stable parameters’?
‘Coalition A’ could include the uS, Australia and Russia, and ‘Coalition B’ China and India (and Brazil). Their respective strategies regarding guidance instruments are ‘only agree if China and India significantly cut their emissions too’ and ‘only agree if emission cuts are fairly
distributed in the light of historic emissions’. (other coalitions include the least developed countries, the small island states and the European countries.) In this case, ‘Policy brokers’ include the Eu and the IPCC,
while host country Mexico was also an important policy broker in the Cancun CoP. The ‘sovereigns’ are the country representatives (i.e. ministers) at the conference of parties, and the national governments
which must ratify the decisions. Among the ‘relatively stable parameters’ are: the attributes of climate change, as reported by the IPCC; the distribution of natural resources (e.g. coal in India, China and Australia); the socio-cultural values and the socio-economic structure
of certain countries (e.g. the uS being highly energy-intensive); and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Section 14.3 discusses various national traditions with regard to the institutionalisation of the science–policy interface.
A Germany has no general-purpose science/policy institutions, but instead has specialised advisory bodies. Can you explain this? What is the (historical) background?
B According to the authors, why is it not surprising that
(environmental) assessment processes in France tend to be under the control of policy-makers?
C What is the typical relation between science and policy according to the National Academy model? According to the authors, what special condition, defined at the formation of the National Academy of Sciences of the uS, led to the creation of the National Research Council in the uS?
For further information visit the ‘history’ page of NAS http://www.
nasonline.org/about-nas/history/
a Germany has no general-purpose science/policy institutions, but instead has specialised advisory bodies. one historical reason described by the authors is the fact that different institutions developed in the eastern and western parts of Germany during the 20th century.
b France has a tradition of strong administrative control over education and research. Assessment processes thus tend to be under the control of policy makers.
c The National Academy model adheres quite rigidly to the ideal of strict separation between science and policy. The National Academy of Sciences of the uS was established on condition that its members be available to produce advice to policy-makers. The National Research Council in the uS serves this purpose.
NB Note that the account given at the ‘history’ page of NAS
(http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/history/), is slightly different.
In Section 14.4.3, ‘Policy as Accommodation’, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is mentioned as a successful example of scientific consensus-building. Why is this not an appropriate example in this section?
The IPCC was established to evaluate climate research. Global warming is a typical unstructured problem, in which science has a role as problem finder and ‘Policy as learning’ is appropriate.
‘Policy as Accommodation’ is appropriate for badly structured problems (Fig. 14.2). In badly structured problems, the focus is rather on disagreement about goals than on disagreement about knowledge.
In addition, the recent discussion about the role of the IPCC shows that building scientific consensus in the case of an unstructured problem like climate change is only possible to some extent.
Chlorinated micropollutants are a family of persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic pollutants. Notorious examples include dioxins, PCBs and pesticide residues. Many of them are suspected of being carcinogenic and causing endocrine disruption (i.e. they may cause cancer and affect hormone systems in animals). It is not clear, however, how
specific chlorinated micropollutants are actually released into the environment and how much of them is released. In addition, their fate and impacts are largely unknown. In the 1990s, the Dutch Ministry of
the Environment wanted to formulate micropollutant policies, but these policies were heavily debated by scientists, chemical industries and environmental NGos.
A What type of policy problem (Fig. 14.2) corresponds most closely to this situation?
B What is the role of science in resolving this problem?
A) Since there is neither consensus on the knowledge (scientific uncertainty), nor on the values (disagreement among stakeholders, health risks involved), this is an unstructured problem.
B) In dealing with unstructured problems, policy learning is essential and science plays a role as ‘problem finder’. Research that includes input from scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders enhances a process which can produce insights that scientists or policy-makers on their own cannot provide.
