Tender: P-02/73Date: November 28, 2002

Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije Universiteit De Boelelaan 10871081 HV AMSTERDAMThe NetherlandsTel. ++31-20-4449 555Fax. ++31-20-4449 553E-mail: secr@ivm.vu.nlInternet: http://www.vu.nl/ivm

Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT):A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies.

Phase I

vrije Universiteit amsterdam

The HOT Proposal 2

The HOT Proposal

1. Tender Institute for Environmental Studies

Title: Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies – Phase 1Title of the research proposal

Tender:

P-02/73

Research institute:Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitDe Boelelaan 10871081 HV AMSTERDAMThe NetherlandsTel. ++31-20-4449 555Fax. ++31-20-4449 553E-mail: secr@ivm.vu.nl

Method of payment:Afdeling Financiën IVM/VUDe Boelelaan 1087AmsterdamPostbank account number: 45 04 204ING Bank account number: 66 69 33 634

Commissioned by:Ir. J.W. Nieuwenhuis, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning andEnvironmentPO Box 30945, 2500 GX Den HaagTel. +31-70-339-2386Fax. +31-70-339-1310E-mail: hans.nieuwenhuis@minvrom.nl

Execution and costs:Responsible department head:Financial contact:Research manager: Execution:

Review:Time schedule: Total research costs (excl. VAT):

Prof.dr. H. VerbruggenDrs. T. EliasDr. J. GuptaDr. J. Gupta, Drs. M. van der Kerkhof, Mr. H. van Asselt, E. RotenbergProf. E. Tellegen, Dr. M. HisschemöllerDecember 2002 – August 2003141k EUR (excl. VAT) 167.8k EUR (incl. VAT)

Tender is valid for a period of 6 months after date of submittance.

3

The HOT Proposal

2. Project Partners

This proposal is being submitted by a research consortium. It will be coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In the process it will be guided and assisted by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). While IVM will be responsible for the quality of the process-related issues of the dialogue, the coordin-ation of the scientific expertise necessary will be undertaken by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. The other project partners are Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India, ENDA Tiers Monde in Dakar, Senegal and COPPE/ Cli-mate Centre at the University of Rio De Janeiro in Brazil (See Table 1).

4

The HOT Proposal

Table 1. The HOT Project Consortium

Organisation Responsible scientistsProject coordinatorInstitute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije UniversiteitDe Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV AMSTERDAMThe NetherlandsTel. ++31-20-4449 555;Fax. ++31-20-4449 553E-mail: joyeeta.gupta@ivm.vu.nl

Dr. Joyeeta GuptaDr. Matthijs HisschemollerDrs Marleen van der KerkhofHarro van AsseltEdan Rotenberg

Project Partner 1National Institute for Public health and the Environment (RIVM)P.O. Box 1 3720BA Bilthoven The Netherlandstel. +31 30 274 3990; Fax. +31 30 274435E-mail: Bert.Metz@rivm.nl

Dr. B. Metz.Drs. Marcel Berk

Project Partner 2The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Nor-wich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ United KingdomTel. +44 (0) 1603 593900; Fax. +44 (0) 1603 593901E- mail: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Prof. Dr. Mike HulmeDr. Alex Haxeltine

Project Partner 3Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)Darbari Seth Block, Habitat CentreLodhi Road, New Delhi, IndiaTel. +91 11 4682100; Fax. +91 11 4682144Email: preetyb@teri.res.in ; leena@teri.res.in

Dr. Leena SrivastavaMs. Preety M. Bhandari

Project Partner 4ENDA Tiers Monde4 & 5 rue Kléber BP 3370Dakar, SenegalTel. (221) 822.59.831; Fax. (221)822.26.95Email: ysokona@enda.sn ; energy2@enda.sn

Dr. Youba Sokona

Project Partner 5COPPE / Centro Clima – centro de estudos integrados sobro meio ambiente e mudancas climaticas, University of Rio de Janeiro, Bloco C, Sala 211, Cidade Universitaria21945-970Rio de Janeiro, BrazilTel. (55-21) 25628759; Fax. (55-21) 25628777Email : Emilio@ppe.ufrj.br

Prof. Dr. Emílio Lèbre La Rovere

5

The HOT Proposal

3. Abstract

This proposal addresses phase 1 of a two-phase proposal entitled: Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous in-terference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies. The aim of this pro-ject is to operationalise Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention which provides the long-term objective of the climate change regime. This is seen as an important step towards ensuring that the consecutive short-term steps adopted in the regime meet the long-term objective. The ul-timate objective of the Climate Convention raises the question of acceptable risk. This is not an issue that can be addressed by scientists alone, and calls for a science based policy dialogue. A dialogue is a time consuming process and to ensure that it is successful it is vital that the parti-cipants are committed to the process in terms of the issues involved, the time they are willing to spend on the project and the need to engage seriously in a dialogue as opposed to a monologue or negotiation. This calls for an intensive investment in the conditions that guarantee that such a project will be successful. Hence, the first phase of this project is essentially the preparatory phase which aims at putting in place the conditions that will ensure the international multicul-tural dialogue to be engaged in in phase 2 is effective. The second phase is the actual dialogue process at regional and global levels aimed at producing a document that articulates and elabor-ates on the different interpretations of Article 2 and the reasoning that justifies these interpreta-tion in the context of different perspectives.

6

4. Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies – Phase 1

4.1 IntroductionThis proposal addresses phase 1 of a two-phase proposal entitled: Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies. This document provides a brief problem description, the objective of the project, the research questions, the methodology, the project partners and research responsibilities of each partner, the time line and deliverables, budget, references and the curriculum vitae of the key project personnel.

4.2 The problemThe climate change problem is being addressed through a framework convention (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change FCCC) and a series of negotiated or anticipated protocols. The Convention provides a long-term objective in Article 2:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

With the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1997, global society has made a first, but small step towards the attainment of the ultimate goal of the Climate Convention. In order to stabilise the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions will have to be strongly reduced in the long term. The level at which the concentrations of GHGs are eventually stabilised determines the overall level of global climate change. At the same time, the level of climate change and the severity of its impacts are highly uncertain, particularly at the regional level. Given the large uncertainties about the impacts of different stabilisation levels it is necessary to address the question: do we need to set long-term stabilisation targets in relation to greenhouse gas concentrations and are concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere the most appropriate indicator for setting long-term targets?

Climate change negotiations have so far focussed almost exclusively pm short-term issues related to greenhouse gas mitifgation in the first commitment period (2008-2012) and the use of flexibility mechanisms ion the Kyoto Protocol. However, action outlined in the Kyoto Protocol represents the only first step towards achieving the overall objective of the FCCC. It is therefore necessary to look beyond shorter-term imperatives in order to address this objective and contribute towards a sound and equitable long-term solution to the challenge of climate change.

The HOT Proposal

At the same time, the debate on ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol has been marked by calls to broaden the ambit of the Protocol by including developing country GHG mitigation commitments. These demands have been countered by developing countries by references to their low cumulative and current per capita GHG emissions, low per capital incomes, low GHG intensity of GDP at purchasing power parity, and high vulnerability and poor coping capacity to climate change impacts. Therefore there is a strong need for dialogue amongst policymakers and stakeholders about acceptable and unacceptable climate change impacts, about fair ways of dealing with the unequal distribution of impacts, and about options for a fair distribution of emission control and adaptation costs.

The level of climate change impacts is related to both the overall magnitude of the change, the rate at which it occurs, and the ability of the natural and human systems to tolerate or adapt to the change. Not all systems are equally vulnerable to climate change: some systems are likely to adapt more easily than others. Human systems may adapt more easily than natural systems, while developed countries generally have more adaptive capabilities than developing countries. In assessing dangerous levels of climate change, adaptation options and capabilities need to be taken into account. This raises questions about how to evaluate different types of impacts and how to deal with regional and social differences in impacts. This also raises questions about critical impacts (impacts that should guide actions) and intergenerational solidarity (i.e. what time horizon should be taken when considering climate change impact risks).

The climate change problem basically constitutes a risk problem, where climate change impact risks need to be balanced against the risk of climate control policies. Acceptable levels of climate change will be defined in relation to the possible societal consequences of both impacts and mitigation efforts. An assessment of non-dangerous climate change thus also entails an assessment of the implications of climate change control policies.

Climate change scientists are unable to define what would be an acceptable level and time-frame for global concentrations of greenhouse gases to be stabilised. This is because the evaluation of climate change risks is essentially a political issue. Moreover, scientific uncertainties make it very difficult to assess the likelihood of possible climate change events and thus to quantify the risks of climate change. In short, the climate change issue is characterised as an unstructured problem where both the values at stake as well as the science is uncertain and subject of debate.

This type of post-normal science problem requires a methodological framework within which scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders can enter into a dialogue to assess what level of ‘danger’ (in terms of possible impacts) could be attached to different levels of climate change, what could be the implications of false policy responses (policies being either too loose or too stringent), and hence, what long-term concentration levels (or alternative policy indicators) may be considered acceptable and non acceptable, and on what grounds (criteria/values).

The climate system will respond slowly to mitigation efforts: impacts of climate change will continue to manifest themselves well beyond the moment global GHG emissions are being reduced and even after GHG concentrations have actually been stabilised. This means that short term decisions about GHG emission control need to be evaluated from a long-term perspective, because they may foreclose long-term climate control options. This raises the question of what long-term climate change targets would imply for global emission control policies in the short to medium term (post 2012 policies). In case no long-term targets could be established, it raises the question how we could hedge against the uncertainty about desired

8

The HOT Proposal

future levels of stabilisation of GHG concentrations. Also, here, a dialogue between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders will be essential for developing proper strategic responses.

4.3 The objective of the project and of phase 1The purpose of the HOT project is to help better articulate and operationalise the ultimate objective as stated in Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention in specific terms on the basis of a science based policy dialogue. Issues to be addressed include the impacts upon stakeholders of various levels of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations; costs and opportunities for mitigation/adaptation in different regions given national circumstances, the implications of climate change and mitigation/adaptation for sustainable development; and approaches to decision making for article 2 of the UNFCCC.

The project aims to:

link the debate on medium-term (post 2012) climate policy targets to long-term perspectives on effective and fair climate change impact control and sustainable development;

facilitate a scientifically well-informed dialogue amongst climate change policy stakeholders about the options for defining what would constitute “dangerous interference with the climate system” as covered by Article 2 of the FCCC;

improve insights in differences of perspectives and common ground for building policy action; and

provide insights into options for fair and effective post-Kyoto global climate change regimes for mitigation, impacts and adaptation.

The objectives of this Phase 1 proposal are:

To identify the possible participants in such a dialogue and to secure their commitment to the project;

To come to a common problem definition, dialogue agenda and methodology that will allow for effective and fair participation of all participants in the dialogue on Article 2.

To prepare a detailed project proposal for the dialogue phase, and

To generate support amongst the policy and funding community for such a dialogue.

At this point, the question of why the project should have such an elaborate preparatory phase may arise. The reasons for doing so are as follows. A dialogue process is an intensive time-consuming process. If the invitees and their offices are not convinced that the process serves any useful purpose or that they individually are likely to gain from the process, they are unlikely to remain committed to the entire dialogue process. For a dialogue to be successful, the same participants need to participate in the full process, to communicate with and learn from each other and in the process to develop a shared understanding of the values at stake, policy options and their possible implications, reasons and arguments behind different perceptions and interests, and opportunities and conditions for coming to common positions. It is very important therefore to invest time upfront in understanding the perspectives of the potential participants, their conditions for participation and to design the process such that it benefits all who participate. Undertaking such a preparatory phase will mean that a diversity of views has been taken on board, which will be further explored in the dialogue phase.

9

The HOT Proposal

Moreover, given the constraints of time and resources, the preparatory phase will also help ensure that we do not miss out on any significant issues in the dialogue phase.

4.4 The research questionsThis project addresses the following research questions:

1. How can Article 2 of the FCCC be elaborated into quantitative indicators for climate change control? What operational criteria could be developed to indicate dangerous and non-dangerous levels of anthropogenic interference with the climate system? What danger threshold levels could be defined for each indicator? What are the arguments supporting the alternative answers to the above questions, which stakeholders are in favour of these arguments and why? What are the common interests behind the different positions if any?

2. What would be the implications for the long-term indicators and/or values for global emission control on the short- to medium term for the post Kyoto period?

3. How important is the operationalisation of the ultimate objective of the Climate Change Convention to ensure that the short and medium term measures adopted under the regime are on target? Are there alternative approaches?

This project is framed within the context of Article 2. Within this context, the articulation of the above questions may change during the initial preparatory phase of this project. Researching these questions also presupposes an effective and fair dialogue design and the proper utilisation of scientific knowledge. Thus the research questions for the first phase of this project are:

1. How do the project partners and stakeholders (re)define the above questions within the context of Article 2 of the Convention?

2. How should the dialogue be designed to secure the fair and effective participation of various policy makers and stakeholders in the dialogue and effective utilisation of scientific knowledge?

The scope of this project is limited to articulating what is considered dangerous and non dangerous levels of anthropogenic interference with the climate system and its implications for global emission levels in specific time-frames. It is not intended to focus on the issues of differentiation of emission control commitments, unless the participants see this as an integral and unavoidable part of the discussion on Article 2. However, the attitudes of participants towards the issue of differentiated commitments is interesting in itself and also an important aspect of any global dialogue on climate change. Therefore the planned dialogue will engage with the question of differentiated commitments, not as the central focus of discussion but as one of a number of issues to be addressed and evaluated by participants.

4.5 The methodology

4.5.1 IntroductionThe HOT project uses a science based policy dialogue methodology, which is appropriate within the context of post-normal scientific research (see annex 1 for a theoretical background). The project will be based on an informal stakeholder – policy makers dialogue with a balanced representation of various regions, views and affiliations, but limited group

10

The HOT Proposal

size (ca. 30) for full interaction and personal involvement. The focus of the dialogue will be more on the policy dimensions of issues than on the technical and scientific aspects. The science is envisaged to perform a supportive role to inform and clarify, and to provide feedback on implications of options discussed. It will pay attention to both climate mitigation, impacts and adaptation and to linkages between climate and other policy areas.

4.5.2 Envisaged activities and anticipated outputs in the Dialogue PhaseThe dialogue will be a science based policy dialogue; each debate will be developed with input and presentations by participants themselves. The participants will have had time to prepare input for the meeting and will not just be responding to the ideas of others. Parti-cipants will arrive at each meeting having prepared a background note outlining their per-spective on and answers to the research questions. The scientists will adopt a response mode, starting with addressing questions tabled in the preparatory interviews/consulta-tions. In response to the questions raised, the scientists will prepare dedicated input for subsequent meetings. The debates will be prepared by interviewing participants in advance of and after each dialogue session. An independent person competent in organising such a dialogue process and also conversant with the international negotiation process and the relevant scientific findings will chair the dialogue. The chair will be supported by the pro-ject team in preparing and chairing the sessions, and in drafting reports. The envisaged dialogue set up will be based on a series of linked two day workshops organised with 3-4 months intervals, supported by short scientific briefings and presentations, the writing of position papers, reporting of outcomes (based on Chatham house rules) and a web site. The design of the dialogue phase is, however, subject to the outcomes of the regional con-sultations in the preparatory phase (see below). The detailed design of the dialogue phase will be developed in Phase 1 of the project.

The anticipated outputs of the dialogue process will focus on, inter alia:

- useful indicators for defining acceptable and unacceptable climate change impacts;

- acceptable and unacceptable levels of climate change and related arguments and preconditions;

- useful indicators for defining long-term climate policy goals;

- costs and preconditions of various levels of adaptation and mitigation;

- costs and acceptability of long-term climate policy goals;

- implications of long-term climate policy goals for medium term (post 2012) levels of GHG emission control and international climate change strategies.

We expect that these items will be covered in the following deliverables:

Reports of individual dialogue sessions as approved by stakeholder participants (not connecting specific names to views expressed in order to maintain the strict informal nature of the dialogue process)

A summary report of the whole dialogue series highlighting important findings of participants and indicating notions that may be useful for the UNFCCC process (as approved by stakeholder participants, without making recommendations on what exactly constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system)

Communications of stakeholder participants to national and international audiences of their personal experiences during the dialogue process

11

The HOT Proposal

Presentations by the project team to various national and international audiences on the main findings of the dialogue series (on the basis of the dialogue session and summary reports as approved by stakeholder participants)

Web based communication of the dialogue session reports and all relevant scientific inputs in the dialogue process

Figure 1. Overview of the HOT project

GlobalDialogue

Partner

Partner Partner

Partner

Reg.Dialogue

Reg.Dialogue

DialogueReg.

DialogueReg.

Analysis

Phase one Phase one

Phase two Phase two

Phase One – Preparing for Dialogue (from the margin to the centre)Phase Two – Engaging in Dialogue

Reg.

Paper

Reg.

Paper

12

4.5.3 Preparatory phase A key element of the preparatory phase will be the organisation of regional meetings in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Annex-I (developed countries) to consult on the design of the dialogue and the development of regional position papers on Article 2.

These meetings should allow for including specific regional perspectives on the issue of operationalisation of Art. 2 and also enhance the commitment of envisaged participants to participate in the dialogue phase of the project. They will be organised by consortium partners in the various regions on the basis of a common format for set up and reporting. All participants in these consultations will be asked to prepare a background note outlining their perspective on and answers to the research questions. This will allow the dialogue to proceed smoothly, and enable researchers to compare early and late positions to explore the learning process. The results of the regional consultation and position papers will be used by the project team to design the dialogue and organise the scientific input for the dialogue phase, that will be laid down in a project proposal for the dialogue phase.

The following activities are envisaged in the preparatory phase:

1. Organisation of the Consortium/Project Management: The successful conclusion of this project will require coordination amongst the partners to arrange the logistical details of the project.

2. Establishing rules of procedure and a research protocol including selection of parti-cipants, deepening contact to gain information regarding conditions for commitment, and securing commitment : In the writing of this project proposal, contact has already been established with the partners in the consortium and some common understanding has been established. Once the project is approved, the initial task will be to deepen this contact, en-sure that we are not only in agreement about the subject but also about the methodology to be used in this project and to develop a common research protocol that helps each partner under-take his or her tasks effectively. For the regional and international workshops, it is important that we select stakeholders to ensure regional balance and representation (see Table 2), that the participants are constructive and are positive towards this project, that we have a good understanding of the conditions under which the stakeholders will be willing to participate in the process, and that the project team is able and willing to meet these conditions. In this stage, we will define criteria for selection of participants, consult with potential participants, prepare a short list of preferred participants for each region/ group, contact participants to check their interest and secure written commitments from the participants to be engaged in this project. Each participant will be asked to prepare for the regional meeting by creating a background note outlining their perspective on and answers to the research questions.

Table 2. Proposed matrix for distribution of participants.

Government NGO Industry representative ScientistsAsia 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 (+ 4)Africa 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)Latin America 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)OECD/EIT 4 ( +8) 4 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)N.B. The numbers outside parenthesis indicate the participants selected for the international dialogue. The numbers inside the parenthesis indicate the participants that also participate in the regional dialogues.

The HOT Proposal

3. Regional consultations on the views of the regional participants about the objective, con-tents (agenda setting, information needs and envisaged outcomes) and design of the dia-logue (structure, approach, process). The preparatory phase will include an inventory of the questions and views of the policy stakeholders related to the various aspects of the issues at hand. This will be accomplished by organising a workshop with potential participants and/or by interviewing. Other means of eliciting the key questions and views of stakeholders can be through an advance survey (questionnaire) conducted through email, and/or an elec-tronic discussion forum. This will help reach out to an audience wider than the eventual parti-cipants in the regional consultations. In identifying participants for the preparatory phase, we should make use of existing research networks/groups, whose members are beginning to un-dertake research on post-Kyoto issues, e.g. the RING network, RNGOs (research and inde-pendent NGOs) group, the Climate Change Knowledge Network (CICERO, CSDA, SEI, WRI, IISD, etc.) and others. The information gathered will be used for elaborating the design of the dialogue, the policy agenda of the first workshop, and to select and guide scientists in preparing their input. In particular we will secure information about the point of departure, expectations and desired outcomes of stakeholders; their initial level of knowledge and in-formation needs; potential points of conflict to be dealt with in the project design; conditions for participation in order to enhance the commitment of participants to the project; and feed-back to the design of the dialogue. This inventory will then be presented in four regional pa-pers.

4. Elaboration of the dialogue design and organisation of the process support: On the basis of available theoretical knowledge and lessons learnt from past experience (e.g. COOL), we will develop the rudimentary ideas for the design of the dialogue. This design will be dis-cussed intensively with the consortium members and with the potential participants in the project. The final design will take into account rules for promoting inter-cultural dialogue and a communication process between the participants through a process manager.

5. Organisation of the scientific support (core-team formation, selection of roster of ex-perts, etc.): Science will support the dialogue by providing credible information and by providing feedback on various options and preferences expressed. The Third Assessment Re-port of IPCC provides a good starting point for an informed debate about various aspects of preventing dangerous climate change and attaining a fair distribution of mitigation and adapt-ation costs. It can be supplemented by more dedicated expert input based on the latest in-sights and new analytical work. The scientific input should allow for diverging views within the science community, including those dissenting from the IPCC TAR, with a view to better understand the underlying issues. The scientific input to the policy dialogue will be co-ordin-ated by prominent, multidisciplinary research institutes in both the North and the South: The Tyndall Institute, UK and COPPE, Brazil (see under project partners). The group of scient-ists to inform the policy stakeholder debates will be composed in such a way that it repres-ents a broad set of regions (i.e. it should include developing countries and countries with eco-nomies in transition) and disciplines. The group of scientists will form a core panel that will address the questions and information needs identified during the meetings and provide con-cise written input to the workshops as well as state of the art presentations on selected sub-jects. Their statements will include points of general consensus, points of disagreement, and points where science is indecisive and/or in need of further research. Depending on the in-formation requests of the participants, additional experts will be invited for specific input.

6. Establishment of an Advisory Group: Given the complexity of the project and its policy-oriented character there is a clear need for organising external guidance for the project man-agement. The setting-up of this board will be part of the preparatory phase. It is envisaged that the first meeting of the board will take place near the end of the preparatory phase of

14

The HOT Proposal

the project to give advice on the design of the project. The project team will select board members, invite members to participate in the project and organise an advisory board meet-ing.

7. Preparation of Phase 2 of the project proposal and fund raising: The activities in the pre-paratory phase are expected to be substantial and thorough. We hope that the inventory of re-gional ideas along with the advice of the advisory board will lead to the development of a comprehensive project proposal including a dialogue manual for Phase 2. We will also integ-rate activities in the first phase of the project to create adequate support among policy makers and the funding community so that the proposal is also successful in raising the resources needed to make it happen. One possibility is the call for pre-proposals by MISTRA (the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research), which focuses on the theme of “Moving international climate negotiations forward”. MISTRA invites proposals for large, integrated research programmes that are solution-oriented, and involve the establishment of a dialogue with decisionmakers. Projects are expected to start in January 2004, with a first phase of 3-4 years. The total funding level for the first phase is SEK 50 mn. Planning grants (SEK 200,000 – 250,000 each) will be provided during April-September 2003. The last date for applications is 1 March 2003. Having gone through the call for pre-proposals, we feel that this may be a good opportunity to send the proposal for the dialogue phase of the HOT project.

4.6 Planned activities, Deliverables/Outputs and Time-Line The following table indicates the planning and deliverables for the preparatory phase of the project.

Table 3. Activities, Deliverables, Time-Line.

No. Activity Deliverables, if any Date1. Organisation of Consortium Throughout2. Establishing rules of procedure and a research

protocol including selection of participants, deepening contact to gain information regard-ing conditions for commitment, and securing commitment

Research protocol includ-ing List of Participants

December and January

3. Regional consultations on views of the regional participants about the objective, contents (Agenda setting, information needs and envis-aged outcomes) and design of the dialogue (structure, approach, process)

Inventory of views / 4 re-gional papers

February and March

4. Elaboration of the dialogue design and organ-isation of the process support

Dialogue Manual January to May

5. Organisation of the scientific support (core-team formation, selection of roster of experts, etc.)

Science Manual January to May

6 Establishment of an Advisory Group December, May and June7. Preparation of Phase 2 of the project proposal

and fund raisingProject Proposal May and June

15

4.7 The project partnersThis proposal is being submitted by a research consortium. The consortium is set up in such a way as to ensure balanced input from Northern and Southern expertise. It will be coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in cooperation with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Other project partners are the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. UK, Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India, ENDA Tiers Monde in Dakar, Senegal and the COPPE/Climate Centre at the University of Rio De Janeiro in Brazil (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. The organisational structure of the HOT project.

4.7.1 Division of work and responsibilities for phase 1 IVM and TERI will be responsible for the quality of the process-related issues of the dialogue. The Tyndall Centre and COPPE will coordinate the scientific expertise supporting the dialogue. The organisational responsibilities are shown in the following figure. During the first preparatory phase, RIVM, TERI, ENDA and COPPE will be responsible for organising the regional consultation meetings (see also Table 4).

The HOT Proposal

Table 4. Personnel requirements in working days.1

Partner IVM RIVM Tyndall TERI COPPE ENDAActivity Main Re-

sponsible1. Org. of Consortium 12 3 3 IVM2. Select. & Prot. 4 3 2 1 2 IVM3. Reg. Consultations 2 7 2 8 8 7 TERI4. Dialogue design 11 5 5 IVM/TERI5. Org. of Scient. supp. 5 5 Tyndall6. Estab. of Adv. group 2 2 IVM7. Project proposal 6 3 3 2 2 1 IVMTOTAL 37 23 10 20 16 10

4.7.2 Budget of preparatory phaseTable 5 provides an overview of the total estimated costs of the preparatory phase for the con-tractor (IVM).

Table 5. Contractor budget overview.

Item Cost

1.Personnel (37 days * 0.67kEUR average tariff per labor day) 25k EUR

2.Material (3 trips and 10 days DSA) 4.5k EUR

3.Other international travel (3 trips and 10 days DSA) 4.5k EUR

4.Subcontractors (see table 6) 105.5k EUR

5. Auditing costs 1.5k EUR

6.Subtotal (excluding VAT) 141k EUR

VAT (19%) 26.8k EUR

Total 167.8k EUR

Table 6 provides an overview of the budget allocated to project partners (subcontractors). The personnel costs of RIVM are not included here since they are considered to be covered under the VROM contribution to the Environmental Assessment Bureau of RIVM. The costs of the re-gional meeting for Annex I countries (OECD and Economies In Transition (EITs) are lower than for the meetings in the non Annex 1 regions since OECD governments and business repres-entatives are expected to cover their own expenses, and the OECD/EIT meeting is proposed to be hosted by VROM and/or /RIVM. Material costs mainly concern the organisation of the regional consultation meetings and travel costs for the management.

1 The distribution of the allotted days across work categories is finalized at the IVM, but is only a suggested guideline for the other partners.

17

The HOT Proposal

Table 6. Breakdown of Subcontractor budget (item 4 in Table 5).

Item AmountSubcontracting (including personnel costs)RIVM (workshop kEur 7.5 + travel kEur 4.5)Tyndall (personnel 10 days at kEu 0.6)TERI2 COPPE3

ENDA4

1263229.526

Total 105.5

2 Calculated by assigning approximately 22K EUR for the workshop and the rest is to cover about 20 days of personnel * 0.5k EUR/day.

3 Calculated by assigning approximately 22K EUR for the workshop and the rest is to cover about 15 days of personnel * 0.5k EUR/day

4 Calculated by assigning approximately 22K EUR for the workshop and the rest is to cover about 10 days of personnel * 0.4k EUR/day

18

Annex 1: Theoretical back ground of stakeholder participation

Traditional scientific methods cannot deal with the question of defining acceptable risks, since this is seen essentially as a political choice. Within the context of post normal science, where problems are urgent and uncertain and the stakes are high, participatory integrated assessment is seen as the key method for determining high quality answers. Participation can increase the quality and legitimacy of science and improve the quality, legitimacy and compliance pull of decision making.

Participation to enhance the quality of scienceFrom a scientific perspective, stakeholder participation is claimed to enhance the quality of sci-ence. According to Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990), the hazy boundaries between science and policy threaten the quality of science (Berk et al., 1999; 30). In policy and politics, science is ex-posed to games of power and abuse. Consequently the traditional scientific values such as inde-pendence, integrity and its critical function towards society decline. This concern is shared by Woodhouse and Nieusma who state:

“The point is not whether values are present in expert knowledge – of course they are – but whether some people’s values are systematically over-represented through access to and rep-resentation by expertise, while others’ are systematically under-represented.… Professional-ised expertise in the 20th century arguably has become captured to an indefensible extent by large organisations and by elite who run them and benefit disproportionately from them” (Woodhouse and Nieusma, 2001; 79-80).

Funtowicz and Ravetz note that the unstructured character of environmental problems makes it impossible for scientists to produce ‘pure science’, since unambiguous scientific definitions of such problems are impossible. The answer to the problem cannot be to restore the traditional function of science. Rather, the science-policy interaction should be made transparent by design-ing new rules of conduct:

“The traditional methodologies of scientific research offer insufficient protection against the corruptions of reason which are encouraged in modern conditions, even in our dealings with the world of Nature. We need a methodology which both comprehends the issue of quality of information, and also operationalises the degree of quality, from the best to the worst. Other-wise we have at best only vague pronouncements, to provide an alternative to the old faith in science as embodying the True and the Good” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990; 32).

Funtowicz and Ravetz argue that a new picture of science is required, which they refer to as post-normal science. Post-normal science takes into account the uncertainties, value-loadings and commitments that characterise contemporary policy-related science (Ravetz, 1999; 648). Post-normal science is participatory in that the review process not only includes peers from the same disciplinary area but also scientists working in related areas and policy stakeholders. The parti-cipation of stakeholders in this so-called ‘extended peer review’ may help to bridge the gap between the way a problem is defined by members of the scientific community and the daily ex-periences and practices of the actors who have to contribute to the solution (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992, 1993, 1994). Taking into account the diversity of stakeholder views and perspect-ives can help prevent the misuse of science and restore its integrity (Berk et al., 1999; 31).

Similar ideas can be found in the concept of transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al., 1994; Häberli et al., 2000; Thompson Klein et al., 2001), which advocates a new mode of knowledge production, that involves stakeholders in the formulation of a (complex) problem and its potential solutions.

The HOT Proposal

Like post-normal science, transdisciplinarity pleas for a review process of knowledge that is ex-tended to non-scientists in order to make knowledge more ‘socially robust’.

Participation to increase the legitimacy of scienceThe involvement of stakeholders in problem-solving processes also supportas the legitimacy of science. The setting aside of the idea that science is objective and neutral goes hand in hand with questions about the legitimacy of science as the most important source of information for policy (or, as Gieryn (1995); 405 phrases it ‘the cognitive authority of science’). Jasanoff poses the question:

“If science in the policy setting is always coloured by values, then what role should scientists, who are professionally committed to impartiality, expect to play in decision-making?” (Jas-anoff, 1990; 7).

Fischer (2000) argues that scientific experts’ advice has often failed to solve the most pressing problems. At times scientists’ solutions have even turned problems into much bigger ones. These failures often rest on normative neglect. The discredited role of scientific expertise for policy support has favoured the attention for stakeholder involvement in order to increase science’s le-gitimacy. Irwin (1995) proposes a ‘citizen science’, in which citizens are actively involved in the formulation of environmental problems and solutions. This is needed to better address the social and normative dimensions, which – according to Irwin - belong to the core of environmental problems. In the field of policy analysis, Mayer (1997; 4-5) signals ‘a participatory turn’, as a means to re-establish the credibility of policy analysis on the assumption that it is possible and desirable to give ordinary people, stakeholders, citizens and laymen a key role in policy analysis. Wynne (1996; 74), in order to increase the legitimacy of the authority of knowledge, pleas for: “A recognition of the more substantive intellectual status of lay knowledges than is usually ac-knowledged”. This is not a claim for intellectual superiority or even equivalence for lay know-ledges, but it does imply much greater interdependence than is conventionally recognised between what comes to be defined as lay and expert knowledge.

These arguments all rest on the assumption that every person who feels involved in a policy mat-ter is capable of a reasoned judgement or, as Mason et al. (1983; 125) phrase it: “An expert is not a special kind of person, but each person is a special kind of expert, especially with respect to his or her own problems”.

Participation to improve the legitimacy of democracyInvolvement of stakeholders in problem-solving and decision-making is also desirable from a democratic perspective. Some political theorists argue that representative democracy as de-veloped in the nineteenth century is increasingly ill suited to handle contemporary complex prob-lems and risks (Fung and Wright, 2001). The involvement of technical experts in policymaking has expanded, which serves as a structural obstacle for the original democratic ideal and threatens the legitimacy of the political system (Fischer, 1990; Fischer, 2000; Beck, 1992).

In the theory of deliberative democracy, the legitimacy of democracy derives from public delib-eration (Dryzek, 2000; Bohman, 1996; Bohman and Rehg, 1997; Laird, 1993; Held, 1987). This relates to two central values of democracy: popular sovereignty and political equality. It is gener-ally accepted that democracy is the outcome of an agreement among people who establish a sov-ereignty based upon their popular and mutual consent. All power within the sovereignty is alloc-ated through this agreement. Rousseau (1968; referred to in Webler and Renn, 1995) argued that sovereignty is composed of all citizens and requires input via public involvement to determine legitimate objectives. By this reasoning, participation is justified out of necessity: citizens must engage in political affairs to keep the state alive, for only through stakeholder participation and

20

The HOT Proposal

interaction in political affairs, the general public’s will can be generated from the plurality of particular wills (Webler and Renn, 1995; 21).

In order to guarantee political equality, democracy must engender a population of capable and socially responsible citizens. Stakeholder involvement in political affairs can increase citizens’ morale and intellect (cf. Rousseau (1968) and J.S. Mill (1873; referred to in Webler and Renn, 1995). In other words: people ‘learn’ democracy by becoming engaged in its workings (Webler and Renn, 1995; 22).

Participation to enhance the quality of decision-makingParticipation will not only legitimise the political system, but will also improve the quality of reasoning and decision-making (Mayer, 1997, Mayer and Geurts, 1998; Hisschemöller, 1993). The quality of decision-making can be improved in several ways (Van der Sluijs, 2001; 322). Firstly, participation stimulates the inclusion of all relevant viewpoints, interests, and informa-tion, which helps to rule out overlooking something (Kickert et al., 1997; Bohman, 1996). Secondly, participation opens opportunities to make use of local knowledge (Fischer, 2000). The lack of inclusion of such local knowledge has often been an important barrier to the legitimisa-tion and implementation of environmental policies (Renn et al., 1995; Kickert et al., 1997). Fi-nally, participation can help to avoid so-called type-III errors5: (Raiffa, 1968; 264; Dunn, 1988; 151). A type-III error occurs when certain information about a problem is excluded and sub-sequently a (more or less) ‘right’ solution is found for the ‘wrong’ problem. In order to prevent the decision-making process from resulting in a type-III error, a ‘pooled intelligence’ (Moore, 1987) is needed, in which the issue at stake undergoes a process of problem structuring, i.e. the confrontation, evaluation and integration of as much contradictory information on the issue as possible (Hisschemöller and Hoppe, 1996).

Some restraints on participationIn contrast to the claims in favour of participation, some more reserved notions on stakeholder participation have been made.

Incapability of a rational judgement

A mainstream argument in political theories of the early 20th century (especially Schumpeter’s view on democracy) is that the ‘average’ citizen is not capable of a rational judgement on com-plex matters that go beyond the experiences of his daily life. Especially in matters which involve norms and values such as politics and many environmental problems, Schumpeter considers the policy preferences of citizens merely manipulable opinions which change with the issues of the day. At best, citizens will only be - to a limited extent - rational, if their own self-interests are at stake (Schumpeter, 1942; referred to in Hisschemöller, 1993).

Defence of self-interests

5 In addition to Type I errors (that is, rejecting the null-hypothesis when it is true) and Type II errors (that is, accepting the null hypothesis when it is false) Raiffa and Dunn use the term Type III errors. A Type III error refers to a situation in which an analyst keeps a wrong (limited) perception of a problem (by leaving out important elements of the problem) and subsequently employs the wrong method to solve the problem (which is referred to by Dunn as ‘methodological incongruence’). This even-tually leads to solving the ‘wrong’ problem.

21

The HOT Proposal

This connects with another reservation on participation, which flows from the assumption that human beings are led by selfishness and greed. This means that the more people involved who want to defend their interest, the more difficult it will be to improve policies by means of parti-cipation. Social scientists have developed different concepts to illustrate the idea that stakehold-ers are most likely to defend their own short-term interest and to ‘free ride’ on collective goods. This is mainly because of economic rationality: the cost for social behaviour will usually out-weigh the benefits. One of these concepts is the NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard), which refers to fervent local citizen opposition to siting proposals or land-use activities with po-tential adverse impacts (Rosa, 1988; referred to in Webler and Renn, 1995; 27).

No objective selection criteria

Participation will furthermore be undesirable if there are no criteria for objective selection of par-ticipants. The number of potential participants and alternatives maybe infinite, so if everyone would be allowed to join the process, the debate may never end and decision-making becomes impossible (Berk et al., 1999; 27).

Insufficient level of scientific knowledge

Another claim against participation relates to the assumption in PIA that, in order to participate effectively in policy debates on matters of environmental complexity, stakeholder must have a reasonable level of scientific knowledge. Research on environmental attitudes, however, shows that among the many explanations of how people come to take a certain attitude towards an en-vironmental issue scientific knowledge turns out to be the least significant. Another pessimistic view on the possibility of a dialogue between stakeholders and scientists points to the observa-tion that non-experts have a ‘natural’ tendency to mistrust scientific or technological experts (Berk et al., 1999; 28).

Aggravation of conflict

Interaction between stakeholders can be very unproductive, as it tends to worsen conflict. This is especially the case in situations where so-called win-win options appear to be absent (Berk et al., 1999; 28). The cultural approach to environmental risk (Douglas and Wildavski, 1983) analyses environmental controversies as a conflict between cultures. Such conflict is highly emotional and therefore hard to handle. The opportunity to participate raises expectations among stakeholders. This can be an obstacle for decision-making, as these expectations cannot all be fulfilled.

Threat to democracy

Stakeholder participation can override existing legitimate decision-making processes (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This is in line with Van Thijn who perceives a tension between participatory policymaking and democracy, as participation from target groups threatens the position of the Parliament (Van Thijn, 1997, referred to in Berk et al., 1999; 27), and with Burke (1968; referred to in Webler and Renn, 1995; 23) who argues that too much participation can even disrupt the operation of the social system.

Empowerment of the already powerful

Stakeholder participation can lead to decisions that reinforce the interests of the already powerful (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This can also be characterised as the ‘participation paradox’ (Seley, 1983; referred to in Berk et al., 1999; 27), which means that for effective participation one needs power resources, but these are not equally distributed over the affected population. Power re-sources include, for example, access to relevant information and a voice loud enough to get heard by the decision-makers. Weaker interests are in a marginal position, so participation facil-ities will not be of great help to them.

22

The HOT Proposal

Diverging views on participationIt can be concluded from the previous sections that different views on participation exist, which include different opinions on how participation can contribute to the quality of decision-making, quality of science, legitimacy of democracy et cetera. Table 1 summarises these differences in terms of arguments in favour of, and arguments against stakeholder participation. It should be noted that in the field of participatory integrated assessment – rather than a plea for stakeholder participation as a blue print for a successful assessment – the arguments in favour are regarded as conditions that can improve its effectiveness. The arguments against stakeholder participation – rather than categorically rejecting stakeholder participation –are considered pitfalls that may pre-vent participation from working.

Arguments in favour of parti-cipation

Arguments against participation

Quality of science Participation improves the qual-ity of science as the inclusion of all different viewpoints prevents misuse of science and maintains science’s integrity

Participation does not improve the quality of science, as stakeholders lack a reasonable level of knowledge to participate effectively, and are not capable of rational judgement

Legitimacy of science Participation contributes to the legitimacy of science, as all stakeholders are capable of a ra-tional judgement on an issue that is of their concern

Participation threatens the scientific integrity, as stakeholders only look after their own interests

Legitimacy of demo-cracy

Participation legitimates demo-cracy as it enhances popular sov-ereignty and political equality

Participation threatens democracy as it conflicts with legal procedures and rights

Quality of decision-making

Participation enhances the qual-ity of decision-making as it en-ables decision-makers to take into account all the relevant per-spectives on an issue, and im-proves implementation

Participation is an obstacle to de-cision-making as there are no object-ive selection criteria for participation. Furthermore, it tends to worsen con-flict and raise expectations that can-not be fulfilled

Table 2: Overview of different views on participation

23

References and Bibliography:

Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs. Case studies on the climate and biodiversity con-ventions. (thesis) Drukkerij Haasbeek. Utrecht. The Netherlands.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London. UK.Berk, M., L. Hordijk, M. Hisschemöller, M.T.J. Kok, D. Liefferink, R.J. Swart and W. Tuinstra (1999). Cli-

mate OptiOns for the Long term. Interim phase report. NOP report 410200028. Bilthoven. The Nether-lands.

Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation. Pluralism, complexity and democracy. The MIT Press. Cambridge. USA.

Bohman, J. and W. Rehg (eds.) (1997). Deliberative democracy. Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press. Cambridge. USA.

Burke, E. (1968). Citizen participation strategies. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 35. 287-294.

Carlson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Penguin Books. London. UK. Coates, J. (1976). The role of formal models in TA. In: Technological forecasting and social change. Vol.

9. Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds.) (2001). Participation. The new tyranny? Zed Books. London. UK.Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky (1983). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and en-

vironmental dangers. University of California Press. Berkeley. USA.Durant, J. (1999). Public understanding. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of

the public understanding of science. In: Science and Public Policy. Vol. 26 (5). 313-319.Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University

Press. New York. USA.Dunn, W.N. (1988). Public policy analysis. An introduction. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. USA.Ezrahi, Y. (1980). Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice. In: Min-

erva. A review of science, learning and policy. Vol. 18 (1). 111-131. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment. The politics of local knowledge. Duke University

Press. Durham and London. Fung , A. and E.O. Wright (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory gov-

ernance. In: Politics and society. Vol. 29 (1). 5-41.Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic

Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal

science. In: Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.). Social theory of risk. Praeger Publishers. London. UK. 251 – 275.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. In: Futures, September 1993. 739 – 755.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1994). The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. In: Ecological economics. Vol. 10. 197 – 207.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994). The new produc-tion of knowledge. The dynamics if science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications, London, United Kingdom.

The HOT Proposal

Gibbons, M. and H. Nowotny (2001). The potential of transdisciplinarity. In: Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switserland. 67 – 80.

Gieryn, T.F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.). Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications. California. USA. 393-443.

Grin, J., H. van de Graaf and R. Hoppe (1997). Interactieve Technology Assessment. Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil (in Dutch). Rathenau Institute. The Hague. W57.

Guston, D. (2001). Towards a “Best practice” of constructing “Serviceable truths”. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 97-120.

Häberli, R., A. Bill, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, J. Thompson Klein, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (2000). Synthesis. In: Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An ef-fective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switserland. 6 – 22.

Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy. Polity Press. UK.Hisschemöller, M. (1993). The democracy of problems. The relationship between content of policy prob-

lems and methods of political decision (in Dutch). VU Uitgeverij. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Hisschemöller, M. and R. Hoppe (1996). Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem struc-

turing in policy design and analysis. In: Knowledge and Policy: the international journal of knowledge transfer and utilisation. Vol. 8 (4). 40-60.

Hisschemöller, M., R.S.J. Tol and P. Vellinga (2001). The relevance of participatory approaches in integ-rated environmental assessment. In: Integrated Assessment. Vol. 2. 57-72.

Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.) (2001). Knowledge, Power and Participa-tion in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA.

Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science, a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London. UK.Jaeger, C.C., T. Barker, O. Edenhofer, S. Faucheux, J.C. Hourcade, B. Kasemir, M. O’Connor, M. Parry, I.

Peters, J. Ravetz and J. Rotmans (1997). Procedural leadership in climate policy: a European task. In: Global environmental change. Vol. 7.

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, USA.Joss, S. and J. Durant (1995). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe.

Science Museum. London. UK. Kickert, W.J.M., E.H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan (eds.) (1997). Managing complex networks: strategies

for the public sector. SAGE. London. UK.Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public choices. Harper Collins Publishers. USA.Laird, F.N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. In: Science,

technology & human values. Vol. 18 (3). 341-361.Lasswell, H.D. (1951). The policy orientation. In: Lerner, D. and H.D. Lasswell (eds.). The policy sciences.

Stanford University Press, California, USA. 3-15.Liberatore, A. (2001). From Arrhenius to the Kyoto Protocol: Climate change and the interplay between

science and policy. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 175-197.

Linstone H.A. and M. Turoff (eds.) (1975). The Delphi Method. Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. USA.

25

The HOT Proposal

Linstone, H.A. (1984). Multiple perspectives for decision making. Bridging the gap between analysis and action. Elsevier Science Publishing. New York. USA.

Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press. Tilburg. The Netherlands.

Mayer, I. and J. Geurts (1998). De instrumentele mogelijkheden van de argumentatieve beleidsanalyse: par-ticipatieve methoden. In: Hoppe, R. and A. Peterse (eds.). Bouwstenen voor argumentatieve beleidsana-lyse. Elsevier Bedrijfsinformatie B.V. The Hague. The Netherlands.

Meadows, D.H. (eds.) (1972). The limits to growth. Report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predica-ment of mankind. Universe books, New York, USA.

Mitroff, I.I., R.O. Mason and V.P. Barabba (1983). The 1980 census: policymaking amid turbulence. D.C. Heath. Lexington. USA.

Moore, C.M. (1987). Group techniques for idea building. Sage publications Inc. California. USA. Parson, E.A. (1996). Three dilemmas in the integrated assessment of climate change. In: Climate change.

No. 34. 315-326.Price, D.K. (1965). The scientific estate. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. USA. Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison-Wesley.

Massachusetts. USA.Ravetz, J.R. (1997). Integrated environmental assessment forum: developing guidelines for good practice.

ULYSSES WP-97-1. Darmstadt. Germany.Ravetz, J.R. (1999). What is post-normal science. In: Futures, vol. 31(7). 647 – 653.Redclift and Benton (1994)Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluat-

ing models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands. Rosa, E.A. (1988). NAMBY PAMBY and NIMBY PIMBY : Public issues in the siting of hazardous waste

facilities. In: Forum for applied research and public policy. Vol. 3. 114-123.Rotmans, J. and H. Dowlatabadi (1998). Integrated Assessment of climate change: evaluation of methods

and strategies. In: Rayner, S. and E. Malone (eds.). Human choice and climate change: an international social science assessment. Battle press. Washington. USA.

Rotmans, J. (1998). Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead. In: Environmental modelling and assessment. Vol. 3 (3). 155-179.

Seley, J.F. (1983). The politics of public facility planning. Lexington books. Lexington. USA.Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Row. New York. USA. Smits, R. and J. Leyten (1991). Technology Assessment. Waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integraal tech-

nologiebeleid. Kerckebosch B.V. Zeist. The Netherlands. Sors, A., A. Liberatoire, S. Funtowicz, J.C. Hourcade and J.L. Fellous (eds.) (1997). Preceedings of the In-

ternational Symposium – Prospects for Integrated Assessment: Lessons learnt from the case of climate change. European Commission DG XII. Toulouse. France.

Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.) (2001). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag. Basel. Switzerland.

Tol, R.S.J. and P. Vellinga (1998). The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. In: En-vironmental modelling and assessment. Vol. 3 (3). 181-191.

Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk. The PRIMA approach to decision support (thesis). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.

Van de Graaf, H. and R. Hoppe (1996). Beleid en politiek. Een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde. Coutinho Uitgeverij. The Netherlands.

26

The HOT Proposal

Van de Kerkhof, M. (1999). Wetenschapsbeoefening in het NOP: verschuivend naar post-normaal?. Een onderzoek naar kenmerken van een nieuwe wetenschapsbeoefening in het Nederlandse klimaaton-derzoek. Nijmegen. The Netherlands.

Van der Sluijs, J.P. (1997). Anchoring amid uncertainty. On the management of uncertainties in risk assess-ment of anthropogenic climate change. Utrecht University. The Netherlands.

Van der Sluijs, J.P. (2001). Integrated assessment modeling and the participatory challenge: the case of cli-mate change. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 317-347.

Van Thijn, E. (1997). Politiek en bureaucratie: Baas boven baas. Van Gennep. Amsterdam. The Nether-lands.

Webler, T. and O. Renn (1995). A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In: Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedeman. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for en-vironmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands. 17-33.

WCED / World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford Uni-versity Press. Oxford. UK.

Weinberg, A.M. (1972). Science and Trans-science. In: Minverva. Vol. 10. 209-222.Weynant, J., O. Davidson, H. Dowlatabadi, J. Edmonds, M. Grubb, E.A. Parson, R. Richels, J. Rotmans, P.

Shukla, R.S.J. Tol, W. Cline and S. Fankhauser (1996). Integrated Assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce, J.P., H. Lee and E.F. Haites (eds.). Eco-nomic and social dimensions of climate change. IPCC Cambridge University Press. USA.

Woodhouse, E.J. and D.A. Nieusma (2001). Democratic expertise: integrating knowledge, power, an parti-cipation. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick. USA. 73-96.

Wynne, B. (1994). Scientific knowledge and the global environment. In: Redclift, M. and T. Benton (eds.). Social theory and the global environment. London, UK.

Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne. Risk, environment and modernity. Towards a new ecology. London. UK.

Yearley, S. (1992). The green case. A sociology of environmental issues, arguments and politics.Routledge. New York. USA.

27

Annex 2. Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)

Being the oldest environmental research institute in the Netherlands, the Institute for Environ-mental Studies (IVM) has built up considerable experience in dealing with the complexity of en-vironmental issues. Its purpose is to contribute to the sustainability of societies and the rehabilita-tion and preservation of the environment through academic and applied research. IVM addresses challenging environmental problems and offers both pragmatic and innovative solutions.

Research at IVM

IVM focuses on global environmental issues, such as climate change and international trade; spa-tial management, specially coastal zones, river basins, and urban areas; and the quality of environ-mental information, which deals primarily with measurement and data analysis; and industrial transformation, which focuses on possibillities for delinking economic growth and environmental pressure, and environmental management in companies. Many techniques and tools are used by IVM to approach these issues, including chemical analysis, remote-sensing, geographical informa-tion systems, substance flow analysis, interlaboratory studies, indicators for sustainability, de-cision analysis, valuation of environmental goods, cost-benefit analysis and integrated economic and environmental modeling

Multidisciplinary approach

Complex environmental problems require a multidisciplinary approach, and so IVM researchers have a wide diversity of backgrounds varying from chemistry and ecology to economics and so-cial sciences. The researchers at the Institute have two unifying features: their concern for the en-vironment and their desire to undertake path-breaking, high quality research. At the same time, they are used to operating within time and budgetary constraints.

The Institute

IVM was founded at the Vrije Universiteit (VU) in 1971. Since IVM is based at the VU, it has dir-ect access to its infrastructure (libraries), specific knowledge and experts. IVM employs 80 people of which 60 are directly involved in research. IVM researchers co-operate with partners from other Dutch institutes, and also with institutes in other countries. A large part of its budget is ob-tained by contract research. IVM's clients include national and international research funding or-ganisations, business, governmental and non-governmental organisations, and international (UN) organisations. Projects from these sources account for approximately three quarters of its budget. About one quarter of the research is funded by the VU.

Annex 3. CV of Project Leader, Joyeeta Gupta

Name: GuptaFirst name: .JoyeetaDate of birth: 12 June 1964

Telephone: 020-4449548

E-mail: joyeeta.gupta@ivm.vu.nl

Academic training1997 Ph.D. in (International) Law, Vrije Universiteit (VU), The Netherlands

1988 Master of Laws (LL.M.) in (International) Law, Harvard Law School, USA

1987 Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in Indian Law, Gujarat University, India

1984 Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Economics Honours, Delhi University, India

Scholarships and prizes:

Year Name

’03 – ’08 VIDI Innovational Research Laureat, Netherlands’ Scientific Organisation (NWO)

’00 -’02 Post-doctorate fellowship from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

’97 - ’99 Person oriented post-doctorate fellowship from NWO

’87 - ’88 Studies and living expenses at Harvard, The Inlaks Foundation, U.K.

’87 Fellowship for work at Multinational Monitor, Ralph Nader, USA

’86 Scholarship for excellence in law, Indian Federation of Women Lawyers, India

’85 - ’86 Merit Award for work at Consumer Education and Research Centre, India

’84 Best All Round Student, LSR College, New Delhi, India

’81 - ’84 National Talent Search Examination Scholarship, India

’77 - ’79 Junior Science Talent Search Scholarship, India

Professional Employment History:

Year Function

’02 Interim Head of Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, Institute for Envir-onmental Studies (IVM), VUA (March till September).

’01 - Associate Professor, Programme Manager, Research Programme on International En-vironmental Governance, IVM), VUA

’93 – ’01 Senior Researcher, IVM, VUA

’89 - ’93 Consultant, Resource Analysis (RA), Delft.

’88 - ’89 Consultant, International Organisation of Consumers’ Unions (IOCU), Den Haag.

’87 & ’88 (summer) Researcher, Centre for the Study of Responsive Law, Office of Ralph Nader, USA

’84 - ’87 Editor, "Consumer Confrontation" (monthly magazine), Consumer Education and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, India (part time).

The HOT Proposal

Expertise: Dr. Gupta’s areas of expertise are in the multidisciplinary (legal, political and policy) analysis of inter-national environmental agreements and multi-level environmental governance. In particular her focus has been on the climate change regime, which she has examined from the North-South perspective and the perspective of Europe. She has also looked at domestic implementation issues especially in relation to energy in countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Kenya. She teaches international and na-tional water law. She is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training (START) of IGBP, IHDP and WCRP; Member of the Netherlands Human Dimensions Programme Commission; Member of the International Law Commission of World Conservation Union (IUCN) and was lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Technology Transfer. She has been a member of the Board of Trustees of four Dutch Foundations.

Publications:Editorships and Reporting for Scientific and Policy Journals:

Year Journal

’01 – 04 Member, Editorial board, Environmental Science and Policy, Elsevier.

’99 - Associate Editor, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Kluwer Academic Publishers

’98 - Member, Editorial board, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprise Limited

’90 - ’91 Member , Editorial Board, Change, Ministry of Environment, The Netherlands (for two issues)

’88 - ’89 Legal reporter, International Banking Law Journal, Kluwer/Longman, U.K.

’84- -’87 Editor, Consumer Confrontation, CERC, India

Books: Gupta, J. (2001). Our Simmering Planet: What to do About Global Warming, Zed Publishers, London, p.

178.Gupta, J. (2000). On Behalf of My Delegation: A Guide for Developing Country Climate Negotiators,

Center for Sustainable Development of the Americas, Washington D.C., p 100. (translated into French and Spanish)

Gupta, J. and M. Grubb (eds.) (2000). Climate Change and European Leadership: A Sustainable Role for Europe, Environment and Policy Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 344.

Vellinga, P., F. Berkhout and J. Gupta (eds.) (1998). Managing a Material World: Reflections on Indus-trial Ecology, Environment and Policy Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 348.

Gupta, J. (1997). The Climate Change Convention and Developing Countries - From Conflict to Con-sensus?, Environment and Policy Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 256.

Maya, S. and J. Gupta (eds.) (1996). Joint Implementation: Weighing the Odds in an Information Va-cuum, Southern Centre on Energy and Environment, Zimbabwe, pp. 164.

Book Chapters (selection)Gupta, J. (2002). The Climate Convention: Can A Divided World Unite? In Briden, J. and Thomas, E.

Downing (eds.) Managing the Earth: The Eleventh Linacre Lectures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 129-156.

Gupta, J. (2001). Legitimacy in the Real World: A Case Study of the Developing Countries, Non-Govern-mental Organisations and Climate Change, in Jean-Marc Coicaud and Veijo Heiskanen (eds.) The Le-gitimacy of International Organizations, United Nations University Press, pp. 482-518.

Mansley M., E. Martinot, T. Onchan, D. Ahuja, W. Chantanakome, S. DeCanio, M. Grubb, J. Gupta, L.Junfeng, M.Hedger, B. Natarajan, J. Turkson, D. Wallace (2000). Enabling Environments for Tech-nology Transfer, Special Report on Technology Transfer, Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 105-141.

30

The HOT Proposal

Mansley, M, Eric Martinot, Tongroj Onchan, Dilip Ahuja, Weerawat Chantanakome, Michael Grubb, Joyeeta Gupta,Tom Heller, Li Junfeng, Charles Mehl, Bhaskhar Natarajan, Theodore Panayotou, John Turkson, David Wallace (2000). Financing and Partnerships for Technology Transfer, Special Report on Technology Transfer, Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 143-174.

Articles (selected)Gupta, J. (2001). India and Climate Change Policy: Between Diplomatic Defensiveness and Industrial

Transformation, Energy and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 2&3, pp. 217-236.Gupta, J. (2001). Effectiveness of Air Pollution Treaties: The Role of Knowledge, Power and Participa-

tion in William Dunn, Jerome Ravetz, Rob Hoppe and Matthijs Hisschemöller (eds.) Knowledge, Power and Participation, Policy Studies Annual, Transaction Publishers, pp. 145-174.

Gupta, J. and L. Ringius (2001). The EU’s Climate Leadership: Between Ambition and Reality, Interna-tional Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 1(2), pp. 281-299.

Gupta, J. (2000). North-South Aspects of the Climate Change Issue: Towards a Negotiating Theory and Strategy for Developing Countries, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Volume 3, No. 2, 115-135.

Gupta, J. (1999). Evaluation of the Climate Change Regime and Related Developments, Yearbook on In-ternational Cooperation on Environment and Development 1999/2000, Earthscan, 19-30.

Gupta, J. and N. v.d. Grijp (1999). Leadership in the Climate Change Regime: The European Union in the Looking Glass, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol.2, No. 2, pp. 303-322.

Matthijs Hisschemöller and Joyeeta Gupta (1999). Problem-solving through International Environmental Agreements: The Issue of Regime Effectiveness, International Political Science Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 153-176.

Gupta, J. (1999). North-South Aspects of the Climate Change Issue: Towards a Constructive Negotiating Package for Developing Countries, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp. 198-208.

Gupta J. (1998). Leadership in the Climate Regime: Inspiring the commitment of developing countries in the post-Kyoto phase, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 178-188.

Gupta, J., C.J. Jepma and K.Blok (1998). International Climate Change Policy: Coping With Differenti-ation, Milieu, Volume 13, No. 5, 264-274.

Gupta, J and Hisschemöller, M. (1997). Issue-linkages: a Global Strategy Towards Sustainable Develop-ment, International Environmental Affairs, Volume 9. No. 4, Fall 1997, 289-308.

Gupta, J. (1995).The Global Environment Facility in its North-South Context, Environmental Politics, Volume 4, no.1, 19-43.

Research Memorandum and Reports (selected)Gupta, J., J. Vlasblom and C. Kroeze with contributions from K. Blok., M. Hisschemoller, C. Boudri and

K. Dorland (2002). An Asian Dilemma: Modernising the Electricity Sector in China and India in the context of Rapid Economic Growth and the Concern for Climate Change, NOP, RIVM, Bilthoven, NOP report no. 410200097.

Gupta, J., Peter van der Werff and Frederic Gagnon-Lebrun (2001). Bridging Interest, Classification and Technology Gaps in the Climate Change Regime, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, E-01/06.

31

PROJECTFORMULIER Auteur: JGBij wijzigingen dit formulier aanpassen Datum: 28-11-02

Versienr.:Projectvoorstelnr.: P-02/73

Projectcode:

Projectnr.:

Afdeling: Programma-eenheid:

Titel (Ned.):

Title (Engels):Helping Operationalise article Two (HOT): A science-based policy dialogue on fair and effective ways to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system and implications for Post-Kyoto policies – Phase 1

Startdatum: Einddatum: Fasenr.:

Projectleider (PL): Reviewer (Rev): Overheadfactor:

Description (Engels):(eventueel reden afwijzing)

Opdrachtgever:

Samenwerking:

Eindproduct:

Pers.budget: Mat.budget: Uitbesteed werk: Declarabel:

B.T.W.:hoog/laag/nul/geen

In SAP-systeem:Ja / Nee

GoedkeuringParaaf PM:

Toetsing begrotingParaaf adm.:

Mensinzet in uren:Naam Totaal 2002 Naam Totaal 2002PL:Rev: