Nov 30, 2014 - Authors with questions or preliminary proposals for papers are encouraged to be in contact with prof. Mik
Open invitation to the INOGOV Workshop: Climate Change Policy and Governance: Initiation, Experimentation, Evaluation 12-13 March 2015, Helsinki
Summary This workshop takes a fresh look at what can be learned from experiments and attempts at experimentation in the context of climate change governance. The focus is on experimenting as a broader societal/governance phenomenon and on the ways experiments materialize and challenge existing policies, practices and regulatory systems. This fully funded workshop encourages exploration of experiments from many different angles with the aim to catalyse thinking about experiments, processes of experimentation and the use of experiments. It is expected to bring together new empirical and theoretical analyses. The workshop welcomes theoretical papers, methodological papers, conceptual and empirical studies or combinations thereof. The aim is to eventually publish the contributions presented at the workshop, subject to normal review process, as a Special Volume in a suitable journal.
Background Transitions that reduce dependence on fossil carbon and that increase resilience and adaptive capacity require innovative policy development and governance. Experiments have emerged as tools offering potentially new knowledge, practices, networks and iconic examples for local, national and even international climate governance (Brown and Vergragt 2008; Schot and Geels 2008; Seyfang and Smith 2007; Hoffmann 2011; Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2012; Bulkeley et al. 2012). So called natural experiments (Gerber and Green 2008) have furthermore been seen as an improved way to demonstrate causal inference. But experimentation without evaluation will not inform learning and is unlikely to contribute to the transition towards a low-carbon (COM/2011/0112 final) or sufficiently adapted society (IPCC WGII AR5 SPM 2014). Experimentation has become a hot topic with buy in from researchers and governments alike. Experiments are normally thought of as 1) making something new and concrete that is 2) tried out or tested in a restricted environment in terms of time, space, scope and/or actors but that 3) is intended to provide proof of principle and that subsequently could have the potential of wider societal relevance through various up-scaling mechanisms. As a phenomenon, experimentation can be analysed from different angles such as governance experimentation (Jowell 2003; Sabel and Zeitlin 2010), socio-technical experimentation as part of sustainability transitions focusing on technological innovations and markets (Kemp et al. 1998; Schot and Geels 2008) and as “living laboratories” taking place at a local level (Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2012; Evans 2011). Experiments are also related to the concept of reflexive law according to which law should be tentative, experimental and learning, and capable of responding to the changing conditions of regulatory implementation (Teubner 1983, Dorf 2003, Zumbansen 2008, Ruhl 2011, Cumming 2013). Issues of precision of law, flexible legal rules, predictability and legal security are essential in shaping the forms of reflexivity in law, and they are all are of significance and they are all of significance for creating an “experimental society” with a “culture of experiments” that echo ideas of Dewey (Vander Veen 2011). Local experiments that outperform official climate strategies and national top-down programmes are of particular interest because they suggest that the potential for change is greater than policies recognise. For example, local experiments have demonstrated an ability to produce significant cuts of GHGemissions beyond official policies1 and experiments have been able to solve problems of adaptation 1
http://www.dw.de/finnish-towns-offer-road-map-to-carbon-neutrality/a-14836256-1
1
(Cloutier 2014). But experimentation at higher levels of governance can also be envisaged, including the EU open method of coordination or the support for projects such as Mayors Adapt.2 There is scope for new empirical and theoretical analyses of experiments that would provide insights into their wider environmental effectiveness, social and economic sustainability and ultimately their capacity to contribute to system level transitions.
Topical areas The workshop will be designed to catalyze thinking about experiments and processes of experimentation by bringing together new empirical and theoretical analyses. It welcomes theoretical papers, methodological papers, conceptual and empirical studies or combinations thereof that investigate unanswered questions such as: 1) Experiments as examples of innovative, participatory approaches to climate governance: why and how have the experiments emerged, who are the agents and what do the experiments achieve at the level at which they are conducted? 2) Experimenting as a way to bypass obstacles of traditional policy development by creating niches in which new ideas for local but also national and even international climate policy development can be explored. Do experiments pave the way for the diffusion of innovations or are they mere distractions and used as a delaying tactic? How can their role be evaluated? What is their true effectiveness in different sectors compared with other climate change mitigation/adaptation measures? 3) What is the transformative power and mechanisms of experiments and how do they link to policies that promote, implement and upscale the experiments. How can the transformative power and upscaling be evaluated? Do experiments reveal or demonstrate causal relationships that are important for policy development? How do experiments challenge existing systems and practice and how do experiments contribute to and get consolidated in regulation and new policies? 4) How do experiments fit with existing governance systems and sectoral policymaking? What are the drivers and barriers to climate policy experiments in exist in EU, national and regional administrations? 5) The differences and similarities between experiments for adaptation and mitigation. How does the context influence the possibilities to experiment at different levels of governance? 6) What is the relationship between experimentation, niche management, transition theory and legal theories such as reflexive law and what are the implications for the evaluation of experiments?
Target audience The workshop is designed to forge new and productive alliances between scholars in the area of governance studies, innovation research, science and technology studies, evaluation research, legal studies and transition studies. The outcome of the workshop will be of interests to academics, policy-makers, and public and private practitioners that foster experiments to improve climate governance with the aim to break new ground in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Practicalities and submission dead lines The workshop will be funded under the 4 year COST Action INOGOV (IS1309 Innovations in Climate Governance: Sources, Patterns and Effects) (2014-8). INOGOV will cover reasonable travel costs and accommodation of all invited authors, subject to standard COST reimbursement and eligibility rules. The aim is to publish the contributions to the workshop, subject to normal review process, as a Special Volume in a suitable journal. Activities that created INOGOV have already led to the publication of two special issues, in Environmental Politics (2014, Vol. 23 (5) and Global Environmental Change (2014): in press.
2
http://mayors-adapt.eu/
2
Interested participants/authors are encouraged to submit 1000 words abstracts by November 30, 2014 as a first step towards full paper development. Authors will be notified of acceptance/rejection by December 15, 2014 and authors selected to contribute to the workshop and receive funding to cover costs of participation. Contributing authors are expected to submit a full first draft of the paper by February 26 2015 that will be distributed to all workshop participants. The drafts will be debated at the workshop and full papers should tentatively be submitted for the review process by May 31 2015. Authors with questions or preliminary proposals for papers are encouraged to be in contact with prof Mikael Hildén, Finnish Environment Institute (
[email protected]) or senior researcher Laura Saikku (
[email protected]).
Organisation Local organisers prof. Mikael Hildén, Finnish Environment Institute Senior Researcher Paula Kivimaa, Finnish Environment Institute Senior Researcher Laura Saikku, Finnish Environment Institute Advisory Board (to be extended) Prof. Andrew Jordan, UEA, UK Prof. Dave Huitema, VU/OU, NL Dr. Elin Lerum Boasson, CICERO, Norway Prof. Jale Tosun, University of Heidelberg, Germany
References Brown HS, and Vergragt PJ. 2008. Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zeroenergy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(1): 107-130. Bulkeley H, and Castán Broto V. 2012. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(3):361–375. Bulkeley, Harriet, Liliana Andonova, Karin Backstrand, Michele Betsill, Daniel Compagnon, Rosaleen Duffy, Matthew Hoffmann, Ans Kolk, David Levy, Peter Newell, Matthew Paterson, Phillip Pattberg, Stacy VanDeveer. 2012. “Governing Climate Change Transnationally: Assessing the Evidence from a Database of Sixty Initiatives,” Environment and Planning C 30: 591-612. Cloutier, Geneviève, Florent Joerin, Catherine Dubois, Martial Labarthe, Christelle Legay & Dominique Viens 2014. Planning adaptation based on local actors’ knowledge and participation: a climate governance experiment, Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.937388 Cumming G. 2013. Scale mismatches and reflexive law. Ecology & Society 18(1):15. European Commission 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM(2011)0112. Evans JP. 2011. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(2):223-237. Gerber AS and Green DP 2008. Field Experiments and Natural Experiments. In Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Hoffmann. Matthew J. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto Oxford University Press. Jowell R. 2003. Trying It Out: The Role of 'Pilots' in Policy-Making. London: Cabinet Office. Kemp R, Schot J, and Hoogma R. 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10(2):175-195. Ruhl JB. 2011. General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems - with applications to climate change adaptation. North Carolina Law Review 89(5):1373-1403. Sabel CF, and Zeitlin J, editors. 2010. Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architechture. New York: Oxford University Press. Schot J, and Geels FW. 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20(5):537-554. Seyfang G, and Smith A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4):584-603. Teubner G. 1983. Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law and society review 17:239-286. Vander Veen Z. 2011 John Dewey's Experimental Politics: Inquiry and Legitimacy. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 47: 158-181. Zumbansen P, 2008. Law After the Welfare State: Formalism, Functionalism and the Ironic Turn of Reflexive Law. Comparative Research in Law and Political Economy 4(3):1-39.
3
