GELENA Bernd Siebenhner GELENA Research Group & Global - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Institutions for Providing Global Environmental Goods

Université Catholique de Louvain Louvain-la-Neuve, 15-16 June 2006

GELENA

Social Learning in the Field of Climate Change

Bernd Siebenhüner

GELENA Research Group & Global Governance Project Social Learning and Sustainability at the Potsdam Institute for Oldenburg University Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Climate change as a global „bad“

Certain facts

Source: IPCC 2001

Source: IPCC, 2001: Summary for Policy Makers, Working Group I, Geneva 2001, p. 14

Uncertain future

Climate change as a global „bad“

Persistent uncertainties:

Unpredictability: Human behaviour Chaotic systems Political processes Structural uncertainties: Incomplete or inadequate models Dispute over model structure Ambiguous system boundaries Value uncertainties: Incomplete or imperfect observations Inappropriate spatial or temporal resolution Incomplete knowledge on policy options and technical solutions

Preference formation towards climate change

Individual and collective preferences formed under threat of uncertainties Preference formation often oblivious of available knowledge (likelihood of extreme weather events, temperature rise etc.) Myopic formation of preferences No revelation of real preferences because of public-good problem Biased decision making on domestic and international levels Social learning as response strategy?

What is social learning?

Who learns?

Societies at large Social actors: citizens groups, corporations, non-governmental

• rganisations, international organisations, scientific bodies

Following case study: scientific assessment body

What counts as learning?

process in which individual or social actors acquire knowledge that leads to a change in their behaviour in a certain direction

What kind of things are being learned?

Procedural knowledge Substantial knowledge, e.g. scientific findings, new solutions etc.)

Towards a conceptual framework

• Borrowing from organisational learning in

management studies:

• OL is based on individual learning
• Changes in the “instrumental theory-in-use”

(norms, strategies, assumptions) mark OL

• Structural, cultural, personal and external factors

count

• Distinction between different types of learning

Single-Loop Learning

(Argyris/Schn 1978/1996)

• Double-Loop Learning

(Argyris/Schn 1978/1996)

Forms of Learning

Adaptation:

changes in behaviours result from induced changes through external processes that do not include changes in the cognitive framework of the

• rganisation and its members

Reflection:

change in the prevalent knowledge structure including the prevalent cognitive frame

Case study: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Goals of learning:

Saliency Credibility Legitimacy

• > Scientific assessments learn when they change

the way the assessment is conducted in order to become more salient, credible and legitimate or when participants acquire general abilities to conduct more salient, credible and legitimate assessments which are founded on changes in knowledge and beliefs

Social learning at the science- policy interface

Criteria:

• Saliency
• Credibility
• Legitimacy

Reduction of uncertainties on:

• Causes and

effects

• Facts and

prognosis

• Solutions and

policy options

Assessment process

Formation and revelation of preferences:

• Opinion

formation

• Interests
• Pressures
• Promotions of

policy options Policy

• utcomes

Policy / negotiation process

• !"

#"

• $

% $! #$

!!" &' ! ! # %' !! (&)

Source: Based on Alfsen & Skodvin 1998

Science-policy interface at the UNFCCC

IPCC‘s First Assessment Report (1988-1992)

Climate change as fundamental problem with high uncertainties Revolutionary set up of the intergovernmental approval mechanism [reflection] Few rules of procedure Increasing awareness of the lacking involvement

• f Southern scientists

Moderate credibility Moderate legitimacy High saliency

Second Assessment Report (1992-1995)

„Discernible human influence on climate change“ Task Force on the IPCC Structure New set of rules of procedure (refined review process) [adaptation] Increased credibility Increased legitimacy Moderate saliency

Third Assessment Report (1995-2001)

Findings on first actual impacts (changing habitats, migration patterns) Chapter-8 debate changed mind sets towards more legalistic ways of thinking [reflection] Refined rules of procedure (3-level review process) High credibility Moderate legitimacy Reduced saliency

Fourth Assessment Report (2001-2007)

Estimates of higher temperature rise New guidance on uncertainties [adaptation] High credibility Moderate to high legitimacy Moderate saliency

Discussion

Reflection triggered by external criticism Adaptation demonstrate general ability to change Supportive factors:

Existence of a small and well-connected group of individuals in the Bureau Inclusive communication and decision-making structures Existence of functional mechanisms for learning and change, such as task forces, review process, white papers

Political influence?

Policy and assessment process

[Adaptation]

Assesment process

1988

IPCC founded

1990 1992 1995 1997 2001 2002 2005 2007

UNFCCC signed Kyoto Protocoll signed US leaves Kyoto Johannisburg summit Kyoto‘s entry into force 1st AR 2nd AR 3rd AR 4th AR [Reflection] [Reflection] SAR conducted

Supplementary report

TAR conducted [Adaptation] [Reflection] [Reflection]

1st report

Policy process

[Adaptation]

? ? ?

Thank you!

The Underlying Study

Analysis of learning processes in the scientific assessments of the IPCC Empirical basis: expert interviews in 2001 Part of the Global Environmental Assessment Project (http://environment.harvard.edu/gea) See Siebenhüner, B., 2002. How do scientific assessments learn? Parts 1 & 2. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 5 (2002)