{"id":703,"date":"2015-04-21T12:31:34","date_gmt":"2015-04-21T12:31:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussexenergygroup\/?p=703"},"modified":"2015-06-09T11:08:38","modified_gmt":"2015-06-09T11:08:38","slug":"experiments-in-climate-governance-reflections-on-a-workshop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussexenergygroup\/2015\/04\/21\/experiments-in-climate-governance-reflections-on-a-workshop\/","title":{"rendered":"Experiments in Climate Governance \u2013 Reflections on a workshop"},"content":{"rendered":"

In early March 2015, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)<\/a> hosted the \u2018Innovations in Climate Governance\u2019 (INOGOV<\/a>) workshop. The INOGOV is a Tyndall Centre for Climate change research initiative, which started in 2014, and is a 4 year funded programme by the European Co-operation in Science and Technology (COST). The initiative brought together 24 countries in building a strong network for exploring and sharing knowledge about \u2018source, diffusion and effects of policy and governance innovations\u2019 for adapting and mitigating climate change.\u00a0This particular workshop was themed around “experiments”.<\/p>\n

Andy Jordan, the chair of INOGOV and Professor of Environmental Policy in the Tyndall Centre<\/a> for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, gave an introductory speech to kick start the workshop. He spoke about the importance of state level policies and role of civil societies in transnational climate governance. Embracing this polycentric approach to climate governance, which provides scope for experimentation and mutual learning, greater attention is required to identify leadership, support scaling up and to facilitate better coordination among the transnational actors. Mikael Hilden, professor at SYKE and the director of a working group studying effect, effectiveness and legitimacy<\/em> of the policy experimentation – acted as the wonderful host, organiser and facilitator for the workshop.<\/p>\n

A several prevailing definition of experiments exists in the literature. For instance, Broto and Bulkeley (2013) conceptualised urban climate change experiments<\/em> as the ones which are delivered by actors in urban communities, purposive towards adaptation and mitigation of climate change, and strategic in seeking new forms of learning and experiences. These are also the ones which \u201cconstitute strategies to open up new forms of intervention (for climate governance) in different urban spaces\u201d(Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). Berkhout et al (2010) on the other hand, introduced a concept called \u2018sustainability experiments<\/em>\u2019 which are defined as \u201cplanned initiatives that embody a highly novel socio-technical configuration likely to lead to substantial (environmental) sustainability gains\u201d. Associating the concept with transition perspective and applying it to a developing context, experiments are considered to be instrumental in creating alternative development pathways for a shift towards sustainable socio-technical regimes (Berkhout et al, 2010).<\/p>\n

The first session of the INOGOV workshop constituted papers introducing this variety of definitions and underlying theories concerning experiments. The papers discussed were about methods and processes for setting up experiments, and the need for non-standardised methods of evaluation, capacity and effectiveness of experiments in their local contexts. Experiments are also considered as means for production of new knowledge and construction of new technical arrangements; overcoming institutional complexities and political discourses. Developing new cognitive constructs is also a fundamental consideration for designing of experiments. Such design and its governance from a policy perspective also arises questions about how policies protect and respond to experimentation with \u2018disruptive technologies\u2019, and how to build on the learning experiences for further experimentation with such technologies. Other key points that emerged from the discussion are the importance of polycentricism and informal approach in evaluation; and the fact that experiments are not just trial and error, but they have controlled methodological element in it. Such a strong epistemic element is also essential in assessing the success, direction and fairness of transformative potential of these experiments.<\/p>\n

OECD (2012) has acknowledged the importance of local initiatives for \u2018green growth\u2019 over the few years underscoring the fact that experiments towards sustainability by local stakeholders in alignment with regional and national policy frameworks are key for achieving a green, sustainable economy. Broto and Bulkeley (2013) noted from their empirical research that \u201curban climate change experimentation goes beyond international policy initiatives, size and concentration of resources or population.<\/em>\u201d<\/em> The 3rd<\/sup> session of the workshop encompassed research on local experiments, where the local experimentation is mapped against the local interests, viability, technological solutions and power relations. My paper was discussed in this session, which is co-authored with Rob Raven (Utrecht University),\u00a0Anna Wieczorek (Eindhoven University) and Andy Stirling (SPRU). The paper mobilised the idea of sustainability experiments and sustainability appraisal of emerging experimentation trajectories in context of electricity through solar photovoltaic and urban mobility in India and Thailand. The research is one of the outcomes of the NWO-WOTRO project on sustainability experiments and a draft version of the paper received valuable feedback from this workshop.<\/p>\n

Researchers have also recognized the fact that adaptation experiments are less visible compared to the experiments for climate change mitigation. In the final session of the workshop, we talked about climate adaptation experiments, focusing on Dutch and French cases of adaptation initiatives. Discussions centered on learning-by-doing experimentation; the impacts that learning processes have on policy networks and their consequent effects on adaptation management. Some of the work associated this concept with inputs from transition management theory, appreciating the different types and instances of learning processes in adaptation strategies mainly in coastal ecosystems. The final wrap up session summarised the several learning outcomes from this workshop. The key observations from the selection of papers were that diverse viewpoints exist on definition, rational and intended outcomes of experiments, even though confined within the common boundary of sustainability, policy and climate change aspects. The social implications of these experiments – legitimacy and power dimensions, transferability of the learning from experimentation in specific contexts to other contexts are some of the areas of research that are less explored. Moreover, the empirical work presented in the workshop demonstrated a \u2018northern bias\u2019 and the potential and barriers in experimentation in the \u2018global south\u2019 was somewhat under-represented in the discussions. Our paper, which fed in results from India and Thailand, was a crucial input to the workshop in that sense, as it played an important role in expanding the stretch of thoughts and dialogues.<\/p>\n

I sincerely believe that local experimentation strategies are key for addressing complex issues like climate change, confirming transparency and accountability of governance, as well as ensuring that the impacts are inclusive and desirable in the long run. The workshop was not just a one-off meeting, but served as a platform for mobilising thoughts and expanding individual networks, which has both long term and immediate goals to serve. Innovation in climate governance is a highly promising research area, as is the idea of experiments. Together, they serve as a sound, practical model to tackle the world\u2019s problems that we are facing today.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

INOGOV, (2014). Retrieved on 28th<\/sup> March 2015 http:\/\/www.inogov.eu\/<\/a><\/p>\n

OCED, (2012). Enabling Local green growth. OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Programme<\/p>\n

Broto, V. C., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities.\u00a0Global Environmental Change<\/em>,\u00a023<\/em>(1), 92-102.<\/p>\n

Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., & Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental science & policy<\/em>,\u00a013<\/em>(4), 261-271.<\/p>\n

Author<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Bipashyee Ghosh<\/a> is a doctoral researcher in Science and Technology Policy at SPRU. She worked in the WOTRO research on sustainability experiments in Asia for 2 years during her masters in Eindhoven and produced her master thesis analysing results from the sustainability appraisal workshops held in India and Thailand.\u00a0 Her current research interests include social sustainability and transitions in urban mobility innovations in India \u2013 focusing on contextual characteristics and inclusive innovation.<\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\nFollow Sussex Energy Group \"Facebook\"<\/a>\"twitter\"<\/a>\"linkedin\"<\/a><\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In early March 2015, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) hosted the \u2018Innovations in Climate Governance\u2019 (INOGOV) workshop. The INOGOV is a Tyndall Centre for Climate change research initiative, which started in 2014, and is a 4 year funded programme by…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":705,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[96027,34914],"tags":[90180,90178,10837,90173,90176,90177,90172,90174,90182,90175,90181,90171,47370,90179],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\t\n