Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cases: GEAs and Methods of Stakeholder Engagement
2.2. Research Approach and Methods
2.2.1. Data Collection and Grounded Theory Analysis
2.2.2. Keyword Analysis
3. Results: Existing Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement
3.1. Categories of Objectives
3.1.1. Source of Information
3.1.2. Dialogue
3.1.3. Communication and Understanding
3.1.4. Ownership
3.1.5. Exerting Control
3.1.6. Learning
3.2. Linkages between Objectives and Broader Deliberative Goals
4. Discussion
4.1. Feasibility and Selection of Objectives
4.2. Indicators for Success
4.3. Trade-Offs between Objectives
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kowarsch, M.; Garard, J.; Riousset, P.; Lenzi, D.; Dorsch, M.J.; Knopf, B.; Harrs, J.-A.; Edenhofer, O. Scientific Assessments to Facilitate Deliberative Policy Learning. Palgrave Commun. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, W.C.; Mitchell, R.B.; Cash, D.W. Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence; Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Beck, S.; Borie, M.; Chilvers, J.; Esguerra, A.; Heubach, K.; Hulme, M.; Lidskog, R.; Lövbrand, E.; Marquard, E.; Miller, C.; et al. Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise. The Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA—Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2014, 23, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowarsch, M. Fact value conflation and the danger of the traditional models. In A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Change: How to Make Integrated Economic Assessments Serve Society; Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 101–132. [Google Scholar]
- Reid, W.V.; Berkes, F.; Wilbanks, T.J.; Capistrano, D. Introduction. In Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment; Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Capistrano, D., Eds.; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Jabbour, J.; Flachsland, C. 40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, R.T. Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2005, 360, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riousset, P.; Flachsland, C.; Kowarsch, M. Global environmental assessments: Impact mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgaard, R.B. Finding hope in the millennium ecosystem assessment. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 862–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garard, J.; Kowarsch, M. If at first you don’t succeed: Evaluating stakeholder engagement in global environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colvin, R.M.; Witt, G.B.; Lacey, J. Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: Insights from practitioners to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koetz, T.; Farrell, K.N.; Bridgewater, P. Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2012, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowarsch, M.; Jabbour, J.; Flachsland, C.; Kok, M.T.J.; Watson, R.; Haas, P.M.; Minx, J.C.; Alcamo, J.; Garard, J.; Riousset, P.; et al. A road map for global environmental assessments. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 379–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esguerra, A.; Beck, S.; Lidskog, R. Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics. Glob. Environ. Politics 2016, 17, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 13–44. [Google Scholar]
- Sanders, E.B.-N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design 2008, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andonova, L.B. Structure and influence of international assessments: Lessons from central and eastern Europe. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence; Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 151–173. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, C.; Erickson, P. The politics of bridging scales and epistemologies: Science and democracy in global environmental governance. In Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment; Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Capistrano, D., Eds.; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 297–314. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Hel, S. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 61, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynne, B. Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science—Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genom. 2006, 9, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Statement by the Global Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on the Fifth Global Environment Outlook; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010; p. 9. [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. The Basics of Qualitative Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Yamineva, Y. Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbera, E.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Hughes, H.; Paterson, M. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Victor, D. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 2015, 520, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palsson, G.; Szerszynski, B.; Sörlin, S.; Marks, J.; Avril, B.; Crumley, C.; Hackmann, H.; Holm, P.; Ingram, J.; Kirman, A.; et al. Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 28, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiklund, H. In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: A Habermasian review of environmental assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2005, 23, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F.; Reid, W.V.; Wilbanks, T.J.; Capistrano, D. Conclusion: Bridging scales and knowledge systems. In Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment; Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Capistrano, D., Eds.; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 315–331. [Google Scholar]
- Goodin, R.E. Who counts? In Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 127–154. [Google Scholar]
- Chambers, S. Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2003, 6, 307–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, C. Resisting empire: Globalism, relocalization, and the politics of knowledge. In Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance; Jasanoff, S., Martello, M.L., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 81–102. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics; Bohman, J., Rehg, W., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 67–91. [Google Scholar]
- Integrated Environmental Assessment: Training Manual. Available online: http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/iea_brochure.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2017).
- Strandberg, K.; Grönlund, K. Online deliberation: Theory and practice in virtual mini-publics. In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process; Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A., Setälä, M., Eds.; ECPR Press: Colchester, UK, 2014; pp. 93–113. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, D. Advantages of a Polycentric Approach to Climate Change Policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemos, M.C.; Morehouse, B.J. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vohland, K.; Mlambo, M.C.; Horta, L.D.; Jonsson, B.; Paulsch, A.; Martinez, S.I. How to ensure a credible and efficient IPBES? Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 1188–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engels, A. Anthropogenic climate change: How to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices. Energy Emiss. Control Technol. 2016, 4, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabricius, C.; Scholes, R.; Cundill, G. Mobilizing knowledge for integrated ecosystem assessments. In Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment; Reid, W.V., Berkes, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Capistrano, D., Eds.; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 165–182. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, R.B.; Clark, W.C.; Cash, D.W.; Dickson, N.M. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ford, J.D.; Vanderbilt, W.; Berrang-Ford, L. Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: Climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII. Clim. Chang. 2012, 113, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 14081–14087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cornell, S.; Berkhout, F.; Tuinstra, W.; Tàbara, J.D.; Jäger, J.; Chabay, I.; de Wit, B.; Langlais, R.; Mills, D.; Moll, P.; et al. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 28, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hage, M.; Leroy, P.; Petersen, A.C. Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures 2010, 42, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stirling, A. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33, 262–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, H.; Dryzek, J.S. The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: A deliberative democratic approach. Crit. Policy Stud. 2012, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R. Added value from IPCC approval sessions. Science 2015, 350, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leemans, R. Personal experiences with the governance of the policy-relevant IPCC and Millennium Ecosystem Assessments. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2008, 18, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim. Chang. 1998, 39, 621–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavins, R. Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken? 2014. Available online: http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/ (accessed on 25 May 2017).
- Deitelhoff, N. Is fair enough? Legitimation internationeln Regierens durch deliberative Verfahren. In Transnationale Gerechtigkeit und Demokratie; Niesen, P., Ed.; Campus: Frankfurt, Germany, 2012; pp. 103–130. [Google Scholar]
- Siebenhüner, B. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—The case of the IPCC. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2003, 13, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klenk, N.L.; Meehan, K.; Pinel, S.L.; Mendez, F.; Lima, P.T.; Kammen, D.M. Stakeholders in climate science: Beyond lip service? Science 2015, 350, 743–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fiol, C.M.; Lyles, M.A. Organizational Learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siebenhüner, B. Social Learning in the Field of Climate Change; Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg: Oldenburg, Germany, 2006; Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/da05/2d23aa7b9a4541c9514a667d8b89a542b887.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2017).
- Gerlak, A.K.; Heikkila, T.; Smolinski, S.L.; Huitema, D.; Armitage, D. Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: A review of the scholarship. Policy Sci. 2017, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Structured Expert Dialogue—The 2013–2015 Review; UNFCCC: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Carraro, C.; Edenhofer, O.; Flachsland, C.; Kolstad, C.; Stavins, R.; Stowe, R. The IPCC at a crossroads: Opportunities for reform. Science 2015, 350, 34–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edenhofer, O.; Kowarsch, M. Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 51, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental Governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Method of Engagement | GEAs | Goals | Participating Groups | Additional Information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scoping meeting | GEO-5, IPCC WGIII AR5 | Determine general scope and guiding questions, as well as precise chapter outlines for the assessment. | Government representatives, assessment producers, research or academic institutions, civil society organizations, business organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and others. | 3-day (GEO-5) or 5-day (IPCC WGIII AR5) meeting before assessment begins. |
Regional consultations | GEO-5 | Determine 3–5 priority issues by region, associated multilateral environmental agreements, and discuss promising solution options. | Government representatives, assessment producers, research or academic institutions, civil society organizations, business organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and others. | 2 days of meetings in each of 6 UN world regions. |
Review process | GEO-5, IPCC WGIII AR5 | Rigorously review contents of assessment report prior to publication (in a process similar to peer-review). | Government representatives, assessment producers, research or academic institutions, civil society organizations, business organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and others. | Two rounds of expert and governmental review, requirement to respond to all comments. |
SPM negotiation | GEO-5, IPCC WGIII AR5 | Governments negotiate line-by-line the content of SPM draft (requiring consensus on final SPM) with input from authors. | Government representatives, assessment producers, selected authors, and others (as observers only). | 3-day (GEO-5) or 5-day (IPCC WGIII AR5) meeting at the end of the assessment process. |
Group of Interviewees | Description (and Examples) | Number of Interviews | Rate of Response |
---|---|---|---|
Authors and other involved scientific experts | Authors, producers, expert members of oversight bodies and panels | 76 | 31.5% |
GEO-5 | GEO-5 High Level Panel | 68 | 29.9% |
IPCC WGIII AR5 | Technical Support Unit | 8 | 66.6% |
Involved government representatives | Members of national delegations officially representing their country | 13 | 19.4% |
GEO-5 | Member of Council of Permanent Representatives | 5 | 15.6% |
IPCC WGIII AR5 | IPCC national focal point | 8 | 22.9% |
Target audience (not involved) | Civil society organizations, intergovernmental organizations, etc. | 10 | 12.7% |
Total | 99 | 25.6% |
Building Block | Description | Normative Rationale (e.g.) | Root Keywords | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Representation | To the extent possible, represent the perspectives of diverse individuals who might be affected by process or might affect its outcomes. Ensure that representation is fair and balanced. | It is normatively right and procedurally fair to include the perspectives of those affected. It can improve the quality of decisions to involve perspectives of those who can affect the process or its outcomes. | represent*, divers*, inclu*, behalf, perspective, view*, belief, vision, account* | [1,21,32,33,34] |
Empowerment | Ensure all actors are able to engage on even footing, and different perspectives are given equal weight. Break down participation barriers in particular for marginalized groups. | It is normatively right and procedurally fair to strive to overcome power imbalances, and to broaden the knowledge base contributing to the GEA. Empowerment can support trust and mutual respect between actor groups. | power, equal*, marginaliz*, strong, weak, peer, even, level | [1,21,31,35] |
Building capacity | Enable effective and meaningful participation and inter-disciplinary collaboration (between different experts and non-experts alike). Consider differential capacity needs (and capacity-building mechanisms) for different actors. | It is important to strengthen the quality of debates and the ability of different actors to contribute together in the context of an inter-disciplinary and multi-scale process. This can foster mutual understanding between groups. | capacity, learn*, understand, grow*, know*, comprehen*, ability, competenc* | [1,21,36,37] |
Spaces for deliberation | Provide physical space for true face-to-face (or, online) deliberation and trust-building (or, online space). True deliberation can include, e.g., backing up opinions and perspectives with rational justifications based on underlying worldviews. | It is important to build trust, increase willingness to work collaboratively, and foster learning, which can be to which deliberation can contribute. This in turn can improve understanding of different perspectives on potential solution options. | space, deliberat*, convene, bring, dialogue, place, discuss*, face*, person, location | [1,31,38,39,40] |
Communication | Exerting Control | Learning | Source of Information | Ownership | Dialogue | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Representation | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.14 |
Empowerment | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
Capacity building | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.38 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
Spaces for deliberation | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.28 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Garard, J.; Kowarsch, M. Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091571
Garard J, Kowarsch M. Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091571
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarard, Jennifer, and Martin Kowarsch. 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091571