Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change

Scientific Steering Committee

Fourth Session - 1-3 June 2002

Bali, Indonesia

This document constitutes the report of the fourth session of the Scientific Steering Committee of the IHDP project on the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (hereafter IDGEC SSC 4).

Attendance: SSC members present: Alf Håkon Hoel (Norway), Leslie King (Canada), Jyrki Luukannen (Finland), Madiodio Niasse (Senegal), Suparb Pas-ong (Thailand), Russell Reichelt (Australia/Vice-Chair), Agus Sari (Indonesia), Taishi Sugiyama (Japan), Merrilyn Wasson (Australia), Oran Young (United States/Chair). SSC members unable to attend: Scott Barrett (United States), Paul Mathieu (Belgium), Arild Underdal (Norway). Other participants: Antonio Contreras (IDGEC Research Fellow, Philippines), Syma Ebbin (IDGEC IPO, Executive Officer), Sylvia Karlsson (IHDP liaison to IDGEC), Ooi Giok Lin (SSC guest, Singapore), Robert Wasson (IGBP SC, Australia).

Overview. IDGEC has made a successful transition from the planning stage to the implementation stage. All three flagship activities have produced scoping reports, and each has held at least one workshop. The project has entered into several productive partnerships, and the IDGEC Network is growing steadily. Active research on IDGEC’s major science questions and analytic themes is underway; a steady flow of IDGEC-related publications has begun (a full list of publications is available on the project’s website – At the same time, it is important to note that the project has not yet reached the synthesis stage. Based on experience with other global change research projects, it is reasonable to expect IDGEC to enter the synthesis stage in another 3-5 years.

Topics covered: IDGEC SSC 4 reviewed the project's implementation strategy both in general terms and element-by-element. Because the project has now moved into the stage of producing results, the SSC also discussed in some detail IDGEC's presentation and publication procedures. The numbered paragraphs below summarize the major issues discussed and decisions taken during IDGEC SSC 4.

1. Implementation strategy – general observations. The SSC reviewed the IDGEC implementation strategy in broad terms and affirmed its support for the current tripartite strategy featuring flagship activities, partnerships with other projects/programs, and the development of the IDGEC Network. At the same time, the SSC agreed on several specific adjustments to this strategy described below. It also noted the importance of approaching themes selectively and focusing on specific questions that are both ripe for analysis and particularly relevant to IDGEC's underlying science questions pertaining to causality, performance, and design. In general, it is better to produce striking results relating to a few key questions than to generate marginal contributions pertaining to a broader range of issues.

2. The Political Economy of Tropical and Boreal Forests (PEF). PEF is making good progress as an IDGEC flagship activity. A research report on work completed will be available during summer 2002. PEF has plans to produce an edited volume based on work carried out under an APN grant, and the leaders are thinking actively about next steps. In the course of the discussion, the SSC developed several recommendations regarding PEF. It is important to redouble our effort to compare developments relating to boreal forests with the political economy of tropical forests. As a first step in this effort, the IPO hired a Dartmouth College undergraduate to write a scoping report on the status and governance of boreal forests. Efforts to initiate dialogues with other groups working on related issues (e.g. the IFRI project based at Indiana University, the CIFOR group in Bogor Indonesia) should receive higher priority during the next phase of PEF. PEF might benefit from an effort to concentrate its energy on a small number of highly focused questions (e.g. Will the forces of globalization overwhelm efforts to design and implement community forestry arrangements? How is it possible to meet the challenge of bridging science and policy in the governance of forests?). PEF's leaders need to establish priorities in seeking funding for the next stage of this activity. APN has awarded PEF a second grant to work on sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity in Southeast Asia along with implications for resilience and risk. This effort is scheduled for completion in March 2003. The leaders of this flagship activity are considering the development of a new proposal allowing comparisons with the governance of boreal forests to be submitted to APN in September 2002. But it may also be desirable to cast a wider net. Suggestions included recasting last year's EC proposal, investigating opportunities associated with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and creating an IDGEC PEF linkage to the World Wildlife Fund in Indonesia. PEF will work to achieve a presence at the World Forestry Conference in Canada in 2003. Key players in PEF during the next stage include: Pas-ong, Sari, Luukannen, Mathieu, King, Lebel, and Contreras.

3. The Performance of Exclusive Economic Zones (PEEZ). PEEZ also is making good headway. The PEEZ South workshop, taking place immediately following SSC 4, featured a number of excellent presentations. Plans are well underway to hold additional PEEZ meetings in Tromsø in September 2002 and at Duke University in March 2003. This sequence of activities is expected to produce an edited PEEZ volume and perhaps a series of stand-alone papers as well. Funding for additional PEEZ work has become available through the Norwegian Research Council. PEEZ needs to concentrate at this stage on focused comparisons between conditions prevailing in the circumpolar north and those characteristic of Southeast Asia as well as on ensuring that its published products are well integrated and coherent. There is a need in the future to examine both intended and unintended consequences of the creation of exclusive economic zones and to focus on interactions between this institutional change and other driving forces operating at the same time (e.g. the development of more powerful fishing technologies, the rise of concern for the protection of marine biodiversity). PEEZ, too, will benefit from an effort to examine highly focused questions (e.g. Did the creation of exclusive economic zones privilege the state in a manner that has generated inequitable results in distributive terms?). PEEZ has formed a partnership with the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs and is planning to participate in the FAO expert forum to be held in Bergen in October 2002. Key players in PEEZ during the next stage include: Hoel, Wasson, Reichelt, King, Ebbin, and Alcock.

4. Carbon Management Research Activity (CMRA). The SSC continues to regard issues relating to carbon and carbon management as a priority area for IDGEC. Two CMRA activities are in progress: an agent-based model of compliance and a scenario-based model of emissions trading in the 21st century. During the next stage, this flagship activity will take the form of IDGEC's contribution to the Global Carbon Project (GCP). The next steps are described in the paragraph on the GCP.

5. Theme on Knowledge and Institutions (THINK). The SSC expressed enthusiasm for continued development of the theme on knowledge and institutions. The project will support the work of Virginia Walsh in this area, and the SSC noted with approval the submission of two proposals for panels at the 2003 ISA convention on this general theme. This topic also raises a range of issues pertaining to the relationship between science and policy and to a consideration of factors affecting the use and abuse of scientific findings in dealing with policy issues like climate change. In this connection, Robert Wasson noted that there may be an opportunity here to frame and address a set of issues that will prove interesting to the whole global environmental change research community. A consideration of IDGEC's role in capitalizing on this opportunity seems well worthwhile. Key players relating to this theme include: Walsh, Ebbin, Alcock, Wasson, King, and Young.

6. Compliance. A discussion of this theme yielded the conclusion that the SSC does not believe that it makes sense to single out compliance as a stand-alone focus of research for IDGEC. Compliance is important. But it is best thought of as a component in a larger effort to understand regime consequences, including research on implementation, the mechanisms that lead to behavioral change, and the feedback loop linking initial impacts to adjustments in the nature of institutional arrangements or regimes. In this sense, debates about the determinants of compliance (e.g. the debate about the relative merits of the so-called enforcement and management approaches) can be integrated into a larger effort to deal with the underlying IDGEC science questions pertaining to causality, performance, and design. Key players in this realm include: Sugiyama, Underdal, and Young.

7. Partnerships - general considerations. The discussion of partnerships yielded several general conclusions as well as substantive decisions about next steps relating to specific partnerships. The primary focus of this element of the IDGEC implementation strategy involves collaboration with other initiatives occurring within the global environmental change research community. Nonetheless, we should not ignore opportunities to pursue mutually beneficial partnerships with a variety of other projects (e.g. the sustainability science activities based at Harvard's Kennedy School). Beyond this, IDGEC's involvement in specific partnerships should occur at one of three distinct levels: (1) high priority - IDGEC engages actively in a full-scale and equal partnership, (2) intermediate priority - IDGEC makes significant contributions to projects managed by others, and (3) low priority - IDGEC maintains a watching brief and endeavors to respond to requests from others. Specific relationships can shift from one category to another over time. But it should be clear where they belong at any given time.

8. The Global Carbon Project (GCP). This is a high priority partnership for IDGEC. Oran Young co-chairs the GCP SSC on behalf of IHDP, and Yoshiki Yamagata (a former IDGEC SSC member) is a member of the GCP SSC. The IDGEC SSC agreed to structure the next phase of CMRA as a component of the work program set forth in the GCP framework document (currently available in draft form). At the same time, the IDGEC SSC formulated several explicit messages for consideration by the GCP SSC. First, current work on carbon management is heavily skewed toward issues of mitigation in contrast to adaptation. Yet we are already committed to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide that will impact the Earth's climate system significantly. There is a need to focus on the development of an adaptation protocol that will complement (not replace) the Kyoto Protocol. In the process, this will bring the GCP into contact with issues of social vulnerability and resilience. Second, it is important for the GCP to direct attention to the normative issues involved in institutional design rather than limiting its attention solely to empirical issues. Third, a comparison with other global cycles, including the nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus cycles, constitutes an attractive line of analysis for the GCP. While carbon is obviously the central concern, such a comparative effort would offer numerous opportunities for examining human actions and, more specifically, addressing significant institutional questions. Fourth, there is a need to think systematically about the selection and development of appropriate models for examining the carbon cycle as a coupled human/natural system. This may involve an effort to develop new models from the ground up in contrast to finding ways to connect existing models based on disparate premises. In this connection, The Oslo Group (TOG), represented at IDGEC SSC 4 by Robert Wasson, may be able to make an important contribution. IDGEC expects to be an important player in the development of the GCP under any circumstances. But attention to the issues raised here will enhance the opportunities for IDGEC to play a constructive role in this partnership. IDGEC players in this partnership include: Young, Sari, Sugiyama, Luukannen, Underdal, Yamagata, and Sewell.

9. Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ). The IDGEC SSC also agreed that collaboration with LOICZ as it crystallizes its research plan for LOICZ II should be a high priority for IDGEC. LOICZ is in the process of reinventing itself for a second decade of research on coastal zone issues. It has signaled a strong interest in a substantial increase in work on human dimensions concerns in this context, initiated a discussion with the IHDP SC about joint sponsorship, and entered into a dialogue with the IDGEC leadership about a partnership between the two projects. The IDGEC SSC expressed enthusiasm for this initiative. At the same time, it seems critical to move beyond general expressions of mutual interest and to identify one or more focused activities that the two projects can undertake collaboratively. One topic of interest to the SSC involves an analysis of interplay among distinct management regimes dealing with a variety of human activities in the coastal zone (e.g. harvesting living resources, extracting nonrenewable resources, waste management, navigation, tourism, and so forth). Many of these activities interact with one another in biophysical terms. Yet the regimes created are independent and include few provisions for coordination. The result is what IDGEC looks upon as an institutional complex in contrast to an integrated or coherent institutional system. Finding ways to link these disparate regimes in a manner that is compatible with the biophysical properties of coastal ecosystems could provide a focus for the LOICZ/IDGEC partnership. One way to operationalize this effort would be to select a small number of case studies (e.g. Jakarta Bay, Puget Sound) for intensive study. Within IDGEC, PEEZ has an obvious interest in the partnership, but there is no reason to limit IDGEC participation to PEEZ-related activities. Key IDGEC players in this partnership include: Hoel, Wasson, Reichelt, King, Ebbin, and Young. Note: an informal consultation about this collaboration with Chris Crossland, Executive Officer of the LOICZ IPO, took place in Bali on 6 June. A minute of this discussion is attached to this report as an addendum.

10. Other GEC Crosscuts. The SSC discussed links with other GEC crosscuts involving water, food systems, and urbanization. After a rocky start, the water crosscut appears to be moving toward the identification of a set of workable research themes or questions. The institutional dimensions of water systems are both obvious and important. Generally, they involve questions of allocation, where the demand for water exceeds the supply, and of making tradeoffs, where alternative uses of water conflict with one another. At this stage, the SSC agreed to treat this effort as a medium priority for IDGEC. Madiodio Niasse will take the lead for IDGEC in this regard. He has also agreed to work with Tun Myint, a PhD candidate working on water issues at Indiana University, who has been designated as an IDGEC Research Fellow for this purpose. With regard to the project on Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) and the emerging interest in urbanization, the SSC agreed that IDGEC should maintain watching briefs at this stage. Both of these initiatives encompass issues that raise significant institutional questions. But they do not seem ripe for higher priority collaboration at this stage. IDGEC will endeavor to keep abreast of developments relating to these initiatives and to respond to the extent possible to requests emanating from these projects. The IPO will take the lead in maintaining these watching briefs.

11. IPO Initiatives. The SSC discussed at some length a series of initiatives proposed by the IPO and arrived at the following conclusions. Both the Network Initiative, designed to facilitate competitive calls for papers to allow younger scholars to participate in IDGEC events, and the Policy Links Publication Series, designed to distill and disseminate policy-relevant conclusions from scientific research, seem excellent and should go forward as planned. Those organizing IDGEC workshops or IDGEC-sponsored panels at professional meetings should notify the IPO sufficiently far in advance to allow the IPO to take the necessary steps to initiate and administer competitive calls for proposals. With regard to the Policy Links Publication Series, the way forward is to identify 2-3 specific topics that seem ripe for this sort of treatment and to commission authors to carry out the relevant assignments. The essential point in this context is that the purpose of this activity is to extract policy-relevant insights from identifiable streams of scientific work and to capture these insights in language that will be accessible and interesting to participants in the policy community as well as natural scientists and members of the general public. A third initiative involving web-conferencing evoked a somewhat longer discussion. The principal insight arising from this discussion is that web-conferencing may prove useful for a number of distinct purposes and that the appropriate procedures for organizing and managing such activities may differ from one use to another. Thus, it may prove desirable to make use of this technology to (1) facilitate the preparation of collaborative funding proposals or publications, (2) hold virtual workshops in conjunction with IDGEC flagship activities or high priority partnerships, and (3) organize wider dialogues designed to engage the IDGEC Network. The SSC encouraged the IPO to explore all these options and to move forward on one or more of these tracks in the interval between SSC 4 and SSC 5. Beyond this, SSC members commented favorably on the new look of the IDGEC website and congratulated the IPO on progress in this realm. Key players regarding the implementation of these initiatives include: Ebbin and Young.