Expert networks as science-policy interlocutors in the implementation of a monitoring reporting and verification (MRV) system

Abstract

The Paris Agreement, which entered into effect in 2016, emphasizes a definite timeline for communicating and maintaining successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that it plans to achieve in addressing climate change. This calls for the development of a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system and a Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT). Though such actions are universally accepted by the Parties to the Paris Agreement, earlier studies have shown that there remain technological, social, political and financial constrains which will affect the development and deployment of such a system. In this paper, using a case study on MRV implementation in Bogor City in Indonesia, how the above-mentioned challenges can be overcome is outlined through a technological and policy innovation process where scientists and technologists (collectively referred as expert networks) can join hands with local governments and national policy makers in designing, development and implementation of an MRV system that meets the local, national and global requirements. Through the case study it is further observed that expert networks can act as interactive knowledge generators and policy interlocutors in bridging technology with policy. To be specific, first, a brief history of the international context of MRV and CBIT is outlined. Next, the theoretical underpinning of the study is contextualized within the existing theories related to public policy and international relations. Finally, the case study is outlined and investigated where the engagement of an expert-network and policy makers in the design, development and implementation of an MRV tool is showcased.

Keywords

MRV / CBIT / UNFCCC / Indonesia / Japan / ICT based monitoring / climate policy

Introduction

The 21st Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris produced an historic and ambitious agreement. The outcome document of the conference, dubbed as “Paris Agreement,” called on Parties to limit their emission level by concerted international climate action [¹]. Among the long list of commitments, there was a strong emphasis on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and a future “Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT).”

The concept of MRV was introduced during the 13th meeting of Conference of Parties of UNFCCC held in Bali primarily to identify and measure the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA’s) which parties to the convention are undertaking [²]. These concepts later became the edifice for a structured compilation of data on Greenhouse gases (GHG) by local and national governments. The Paris COP later reconfirmed this statement in its Paris Agreement which also recommended to establish a Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) to build institutional and technical capacity (both pre- and post-2020”). A list of decisions and outcomes related to MRV and CBIT at UNFCCC COP meetings are provided in Table 1.

NDC, MRV and CBIT are interlinked and their success depends on credible information. While NDC is comprised of quantifiable information on the reduction of GHG emission by Parties based on a base year, the purpose of CBIT is to strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities by providing relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. MRV will be the tool that supports both the NDC and CBIT process. CBIT will be built upon the existing MRV mechanism and will replace it in future (see Paragraph 85 and 99 of Paris Agreement [¹]).

The abbreviation of “M” in “MRV” is most often related to “monitoring” though it also can mean “measurement.” According to Ref. [³] “Monitoring” covers the scientific part of the MRV process where the number for each variable part of the emission estimate equation is determined. The process is done through direct “measurement” or by using proxies. Bellassen et al. [³] also defines “R” or “Reporting” as the process of aggregating the results and communicating the results to the relevant authority, such as the local government or national government. The purpose of “V” or “Verification” is to detect errors resulting from either innocent mistakes or fraudulent reporting and is usually conducted by a party not involved in monitoring and reporting.

Though the MRV process has been recommended and advocated within the climate policy process, very few studies have examined the implementation challenges of an MRV tool. Baker et al. [⁴] argues that the MRV implementation processes are often hindered by the technical challenges and a way forward will be to enhance coordination among multilateral organizations, international agencies and other key bodies involved in the emission monitoring process. Another proposition that emerged from the study of Baker et al. [⁴], and which forms the basis of this study, is the need to expand the number of national measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems in developing countries. Aspects regarding financially supporting national governments to expand the MRV mechanism are also a major discussion item within the framework of CBIT [⁵]. However, so far, there has been limited progress in defining a process which fulfills the technological, financial and the policy related gaps in the implementation of such a system. The purpose of this paper is thus to understand and analyze a process in facilitating the implementation of MRV tools through a science-policy framework. This paper addresses the technological, financial and political gaps that are currently hindering MRV implementation and is built upon the works conducted by previous scholars such as Baker et al. [⁴], Bellassen et al. [³], Chalmers [⁶], Kunseler & Tuinstra [⁷], Rietig [⁸], Stoutenborough et al. [⁹].

Before outlining a solution, the “constrains” and possible “countermeasures” from previous literatures are investigated as below.

Constrains in materialising the current MRV and CBIT framework

Though, at an international level, there is a clear mandate on the application of MRV and CBIT as a mechanism to build up the national GHG inventory and NDC, there remain multiple challenges within a national level framework that may restrict the flow of information transboundarily (national to global or local to national). Some of these challenges are attributed to:

(1) Data or information gaps on the complete scale of impacts of climate change at a national and subnational level [⁴].

(2) State sovereignty as an obstacle in addressing such gaps through a third-party MRV mechanism. For example, Overpeck et al. [¹⁰] conclude that about half of the international modeling groups are restricted from sharing digital climate model data beyond the research community because of governmental interest in the sale of intellectual property for commercial applications. The same holds true for some observational data.

(3) Restrictions in sharing data through rules, regulations and procedures between national and sub-national agencies are leading to “information silos” within an agency [¹¹].

Other constraining factors include:

(1) Infrastructural challenges at a national and local level [⁴].

(2) Addressing climate change may not be a priority among general public [¹²]).

(3) A central harmonization of such information could be difficult as different agencies may adopt their methodologies and tools in quantification [³].

(4) MRV systems at times require high investment on ICT and network technologies; governments of developing countries often depend on external fund to materialize the system [¹].

The weakness of an international policy instrument like COPs is that it can only advocate and cannot enforce national governments on cross agency cooperation. National governments alone are responsible for such an action. An additional problem, as mentioned by Widerberg & Pattberg [¹³] and Stavins [¹⁴] is that the practical path to meet Paris Agreement requirement is getting more complex as the emissions gap between the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction pledges made by Parties and the mitigation pathway necessary to limit climate change within the range of 2°C above pre-industrial levels is widening. Therefore, answers to these challenges are not in the hands of one actor but distributed among different agencies and institutions and require bringing the various government and scientific agencies together [¹⁵]. It also requires knowledge translations where scientific knowledge is transferred and accommodated within a policy context [¹⁶].

Expert-network as a countermeasure in addressing the problem

As a countermeasure to the information management crisis, Paris Agreement (as mentioned in Paragraph 134) highlights the importance of non-party stakeholders (including civil society, private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities) and calls for them to address and respond to these challenges [¹]. But, as mentioned earlier, state sovereignty (especially in developing countries) constrains “any” groups to report outside its national jurisdiction. For instance, though NGO’s, researchers and other think-tanks, as knowledge generators, do produce ground-breaking reports, endorsement of such reports by national governments is a must for the information or data within the report to be considered official. Szarka [¹⁷] attributes this trend to the reluctance of NGOs to target the behavior of the general-public as a significant contributor to carbon emissions and prefer to treat citizens as victims rather than perpetrators. Further they aim to gain the trust of the public in the struggle to reform governments and corporation [¹⁷]. Studies have shown that NGOs such as Climate Action Network (CAN) should readjust to the needs of governments to make sure they are well placed in the decision facilitation process [¹⁸].

Hence, to convert promises to action, non-party stakeholders need to cooperate with the state, while at the same time avoid co-opting. Such a framework has already been underway prior to COP 21, where mitigation actions on the ground have been carried out by non-party stakeholders in coordination with national ministries and sub-regional agencies such as city governments and local bodies. Some of the NDCs have also been prepared through such cooperation where agencies such as the German federal enterprise for international cooperation (GIZ) has played a critical role in supporting countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia in preparing their NDC’s [¹⁹]. These non-party stakeholders or expert-network, as explained later in Subsection 2.3, facilitate governments to develop monitoring reporting and verification (MRV) systems, compile information, analyze it and further channel it to UNFCCC through governmental agencies. They act as knowledge bearers and knowledge disseminators–carrying out the function of translating raw science into policy. The importance of analyzing the role of experts in climate policy has also been emphasized by Stoutenborough et al. [⁹].

Theoretical underpinning in the adoption of an MRV tool

From the variety of issues and limiting to the focus of this research, this paper discusses the following factors to the adoption of a MRV system in developing countries:

(1) There should be policy level consensus and common action framework between regional, national and subnational entities in adopting climate policies [⁹].

(2) To achieve policy level consensus, the actors and stakeholders involved in the negotiations and implementation should have a common understanding on the goal of the policy and in the means to achieve them [⁶].

The above-mentioned factors can be summarized within a multi-theoretical approach, borrowing concepts from linkages theory, advocacy coalition framework and boundary work theory.

Establishing transnational linkages

Bulkeley et al. [²⁰] argues that transnational linkage arrangements may offer a more efficient or effective means to achieve a given policy objective. Enhancement of international collaboration between developed and developing countries can be an important policy instrument by attaining funding and knowledge support for technology development, where there should be mutual benefits for the donor and the recipient nations.

One example of a linkage process where transnational processes has been of advantage is in the case of emission trading mechanism. Here the transnational linkage have facilitated the movement of financial capital from the developed to the developing world thereby reducing the cost burden on developing countries [²¹,²²]. Similarly, transnational science-policy linkages between developing and developed countries has helped developing countries to understand and grasp the policy making scenario at a global level.

In both processes, transnational actors and agencies have played a pivotal role in navigating the authority paradox in bridging science-policy mechanisms. If transnational linkage mechanism can help solve the financial constrain on developing countries, it can be a major step to the adoption of an MRV and CBIT mechanism which is mutually beneficial for both the developed and developing country.

Understanding national and local policy subsystem characteristics

Another challenge will be in bridging consensus among the different ministries and agencies for accepting the MRV mechanism as a support for GHG emission monitoring. The policy consensus depends on the type of policy subsystem in which the issue is embedded [²³]. Weible et al. [²⁴] categorizes three types of policy subsystems: unitary, collaborative, and adversarial based on the consensus among the actors/coalitions within the policy subsystem. A unitary policy subsystem is dominated by a single coalition and there is no objection to a policy. The second type is a collaborative policy subsystem involving cooperative coalitions and where conflict is mitigated by consensus-based institutions. The third is an adversarial policy subsystem, which involves high conflict among competing coalitions. For bringing consensus among the various agencies for implementation of an MRV system, the policy subsystem should be either a unitary or collaborative policy subsystem.

Defining the role of “expert networks” as boundary workers

The term “expert” includes policy analysts, scientists, consultants, industrial engineers and researchers in government and non-government organizations [²⁴] who play a pivotal role in the implementation of technology and policy. Though the knowledge and objectivity of an expert can be considered a key factor in the adoption and implementation of a technology, in adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems, the expert must play a role of convincing the need of the technology or policy to an audience who are from different disciplines and departments or social worlds [⁷,²⁵]. The process of bridging these multiple social worlds is commonly referred to as boundary work [²⁶] where the technology or policy will connect common grounds as links (boundary objects) between multiple social worlds. On several instances, especially related to decision making on complex environmental problems, expert-networks have played a key role as “boundary workers” [²⁶–²⁹] where they get involved in translating science into policy. In this paper, expert-network is defined as a group of non-partisan scientists and technocrats who influence decision process through non-political knowledge diffusion.

Once a policy solution is in place, it should also be combined with a technological solution which can then link the local, national and international data sharing mechanism. However, for a technology to be deployable it should possess a policy or social license to operate. Figure 1 provides an outline on how expert networks can act as “boundary workers” in addressing the constrains and support counter measures in bringing out a policy solution for MRV implementation.

Though the technological innovation on monitoring and reporting is briefly mentioned in this paper, a more elaborate version of the technology will be explained in another paper.

Research design and methodology

After examining several literatures that has studied expert-networks [³,⁴,⁶,⁷] and sampled [⁸,⁹], the research design adopted by Kunseler & Tuinstra [⁷] is used where they take a “practice- approach” in studying science-policy interfaces. As Kunseler & Tuinstra [⁷] argues, “from the practice perspective, changes to scientific advice to governments arise from processes that are rather difficult to steer or predict.” “…. zooming in on practical concerns enables us to appreciate practices that are bounded by the limits imposed by external conditions…” [⁷].

In accordance with the practice approach, participatory observation and document analysis of formal and informal discussions held by the various stakeholders are made use of. (The details of the activity and the interaction of expert networks are coded in the Electronic Supplementary Material). An outline of the research design is provided in Fig. 2.

Project design considering the background of bilateral collaboration between Indonesia and Japan

Japan and Indonesia share historical, economic, and political ties between the two countries where Japan currently remains Indonesia’s largest export partner and a major donor of development aid. On the other hand, Indonesia is a vital supplier of natural resources into Japan. Both countries are members of the G20 and APEC. The significance of the support from Japan to Indonesia on an environmental front can also be highlighted based on the following reasons. First, Indonesia is one of the largest archipelago nation in the world and highly vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change [³⁰]. Secondly, within its vulnerability to climate change, it houses a rapidly growing human population (increase from 17.1% in 1960 to 52.6% in 2009 [³¹]). The urbanization rate has continued but economic growth has been mostly mediocre since 1960, averaging just 3.6% per year.

A notable aspect which has boosted the transnational linkage between the two countries on climate change and technology transfer is the announcement by the Government of Indonesia to reduce its GHG emissions by 26% by 2020, and with international help possibly even by 41% [³²]. The diffused economic growth and increase in urban population put a constrain or limitation on the national government to invest in infrastructural reforms that can help GHG mitigation actions. Considering all these, the need to bridge in adaptation and mitigation efforts in Indonesia has become a major requirement for both the Government of Indonesia and the international community in general. In other words, a transnational-linkage between the countries existed prior to the start of the pilot project on MRV implementation.

Trans-nationalization of MRV project in Indonesia

The pilot MRV mechanism involved emulating the experience of Japan in energy saving and management and replicating the same in cities in Indonesia. As trans-nationalization of energy saving measures from developed countries to developing countries is of mutual benefit, there is a need for a transparent MRV system in Indonesia to quantify the emission reduction attained through trans-nationalization of technology and policies to rationalize the financial support and implementation action costs. If this process can be materialized, the MRV mechanism can establish linkages in bilateral recognition of allowances under two cap-and-trade regimes. The purpose of the pilot study was to test whether the MRV tool could facilitate such a process in estimating emission from energy consumption at subnational levels, cities and provinces, and thereby provide a systematic data to the national Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory called SIGN at a national level.

Top down approach in the trans-nationalization process

Japan is in the forefront in trans-nationalization of technologies and policies. During the UNFCCC COP meeting held in Peru (COP 20), the representatives of the Governments of 12 developing countries signed individual bilateral documents with Japan to establish projects under the JCM. Prior to the Peru meeting, Japan and Indonesia have signed a joint memorandum of agreement to reduce carbon on the 26th Aug 2013 in Jakarta. By doing so, Japan met the ultimate objective of Article 2 of the UNFCCC, where it will continue to address climate change to promote low carbon growth beyond the 2012 stipulated framework. One of the clauses for realizing a low carbon society is that the development and implementation of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) should be carried out in an MRV manner. Hence, the cooperation agreement between Japan and Indonesia has already included the development of an effective MRV tool for enhancing capacities on the measurement, reporting and verification process.

Bottom up approach in policy transformations in Indonesia

The cooperation with UNFCCC and bilateral donors including Japan has envisaged Indonesia to develop national action plans for mitigating carbon emission. To meet its commitment, Indonesia has implemented various endeavors to adapt to climate change, including the Indonesia Adaptation Strategy developed by BAPPENAS, the National Action Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change of Indonesia by DNPI, the Indonesia Climate Change Sectorial Road Map in 2010 by BAPPENAS, the National Action Plan for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in 2007 by the Ministry of the Environment, and the sectorial adaptation plans compiled by Line Ministries/Government Agencies. For harmonization and operationalization of policy documents among different stakeholders, the Government of Indonesia adopted the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API). The RAN-API is a national action plan document on adaptation to the impacts of climate change, which involves integrated coordination among all the stakeholders, from the government, civil society organizations, international cooperation agencies and other stakeholders. In addition, the government implemented the RAN-GRK— the National Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction. The RAN-API strengthens endeavors on mitigation that have been formulated in the RAN-GRK (National Action Plan for Green House Gas Emission Reduction). A national GHG inventory system (SIGN) has also been developed to link up the central ministries and the sub-national governments [³⁴].

The plan for development and implementation of an MRV tool in Indonesia is timely as it has formed the framework of carbon crediting, joint action plans and mitigation measures including facilitating information into the SIGN system. In addition to the bilateral cooperation, the climate policy in Indonesia has also favored within a collaborative policy subsystem (where scientists and ICT companies are less likely to be viewed as opponents in collaborative system compared to an adversarial policy subsystem [²⁴]).

While national decision-making can be influenced by trans-nationalization and policy diffusion, policy arrangements at a bilateral level are not sufficient condition to create consensus with another jurisdiction (such as provincial and city level governments) to adopt the same policy. For instance, within a decentralized governance setting such as in Indonesia, local governments are far more independent to refuse a national policy choice if they find it unfit to their political interests. This means jurisdictions needs non-political interlocutors to bridge policy consensus between national and local governments.

Formation of expert-network through MRV demonstration research project in Bogor City, Indonesia

After signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Japan and Indonesia in 2013 to mitigate climate change, a group of experts comprising of researchers, technologists, and policy scientists from Japan and Indonesia were invited for assisting both Japan and Indonesia to support the monitoring projects. This group of experts, along with industrial partners from Japan, constituted the expert-network for the MRV project implementation in Bogor.

As part of the project, several meetings and consultations were held in Indonesia and Japan involving stakeholders from the Ministry of Environment of Japan (MoE) and the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Indonesia (MoEF-I), including local institutions in Indonesia (Fig. 3). As the governance system in Indonesia is decentralized, there was a need to bridge actions at the local level with the national and bilateral requirements. In addition, to build the capacity of local stakeholders in Indonesia and to consider their suggestions on the implementation process, there was also a need to develop the knowledge capacity of the local level officials on the national and international commitments. Here, the expert-network acted as scientific interlocutors in bridging the local level actions with national level requirements. The expert-network was organized through several research meetings and symposiums in Japan and Indonesia involving Indonesian scientific experts and policy makers along with scientific and technical experts from Japan (see Electronic Supplementary Material).

From the results and outcomes of these meetings, three key project components were identified as follows:

(1) Selection of target location for the project site comprised of model districts representing an urban area;

(2) Compile secondary data on energy emission from the selected sites in order to evaluate the current status of the low carbon scenario in Indonesia;

(3) Following up on (1) and (2), develop an evaluation method to estimate low carbon emission and;

(4) Based on the evaluation method and the secondary data collected, carry out analysis for estimating energy consumption. Beyond the general objective of bringing in data from grass root to the SIGN system, the importance of having the MRV system was also to increase the accuracy of the data used for estimating the emission.

Bogor was selected as the model city for estimating urban emission in Indonesia for the reason that Bogor had already plans to transform the city into a green city or eco-city [³⁵]. In 2014, Bogor City had also facilitated a green room to monitor transportation or traffic load and air pollution [³⁵]. Though the actions carried out previously by Bogor City can be categorized as mitigation actions, the action plans were more directed to meeting the needs of the society and not just for the needs of national or international commitments to UNFCCC. The expert-network then decided to bridge the involuntary local actions on mitigations to the national level mitigation requirement by integrating the information compiled by Bogor City to the newly designed information framework of the MRV system. The system was then tested at Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) campus and its staff residences [³⁶].

Expert-network as knowledge diffusors

Before getting commitment from the local government in Bogor, the expert-network conducted a pilot implementation of the MRV tool at two campuses of IPB-Darmaga campus (located in the western border of Bogor City and Bogor regency) and, at the Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management in South-east Asia and Pacific (CCROM-SEAP) office within the Baranangsiang campus located close to the Bogor Botanical garden (see Fig. 4).

The tools for monitoring and reporting energy consumption were installed at IPB campus administrative office and residences, commercial facilities (a hotel and a café) and CCROM office buildings [³⁶]. The sensors were connected to a “Green Terminal” which then transmitted encrypted data on energy (electricity) consumption to the cloud server. The data was then automatically visualized on a large screen monitor at IPB. Based on the data, the energy consumption pattern and analysis was functionalized. Figure 5 shows the installation process of monitoring system in stakeholder facilities in Bogor City and the ICT will function as the data assembly as well as knowledge diffusion and interactive communication.

Expert-network as science-policy boundary workers

After pilot testing of the MRV tool, the results of the pilot phase were then brought to the attention of the policy makers at both national and local level.

At the national level, briefings were provided to senior officials at the MoEF-Indonesia to ensure support at a national level for recognizing the MRV tool as a possible national or domestic MRV framework. At the national level, officials were demonstrated with real time evidence on energy consumption and possible mechanism of mitigation action. At the local level, similar consultations were held with the Bogor Mayor and city office officials for exploring cooperation with the Bogor City Government on the implementation of the MRV tool at a city level and to see how the data on energy consumption can help transform Bogor City into an Eco-city [³⁵].

The expert-network convinced the group that within the project scope, verification is performed by a third party and will be used as process to check the process of data compilation and calculation. If the verification is approved, the national governments can use such a mechanism to justify its compliance to international agreements. Following the meetings with national and local level officials, the expert-network further discussed the possibilities of enhancing research based on the data provided. The participants agreed to propose an integrated monitoring and modeling project including multiple themes aimed at emission reduction in Indonesia. It was also decided that the monitored data would be transformed into the local low carbon scenario utilizing integrated simulation model within the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM), as is depicted in Fig. 6. It also became clear that the energy reduction potential under different low carbon scenarios can also be achieved based on the monitoring data.

Expert-network as cross-agency interlocutors

A public forum titled Eco-city Bogor through Green Innovation was organized in Bogor synchronizing the shared view expressed between the actors during their earlier consultations [³⁷]. The forum comprised of officials from both the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Indonesia and the city level officials from Bogor. The national and city level officials shared a common view on how the local government information could be integrated into the SIGN center located at a national level. One important outcome that emerged out of the meeting was the agreement on data transfer from a local to a national level. Here the expert-network acted as cross-agency interlocutors where they re-affirmed both the national and city level officials that the data would be secure during compilation and during transfer (internet security and official protocols on system usage).

From the case study it was clearly observed that expert-network had a major role in bringing out a successful MRV tool within a local level and connecting it to the national level. Here they acted as knowledge diffusers, boundary workers, and cross-agency interlocutors, and thus establishing the linkage process between multiple jurisdictions.

Discussion and conclusions

Drawing on lessons learnt from the case study, it can be argued that expert networks can play a significant role in the design, development, and implementation of an MRV system. By the end of 2017, 17 buildings in Bogor City had been monitored for energy consumption using 180 sensors. The details of the monitoring points are displayed in Fig. 4. This indicates that the MRV tool has been a success and it can be attributed to the role played by the expert-network to bridge science and technology with local government policy.

There were several other favorable factors that lead to the successful implementation. For instance, there existed a trans-national linkage between Japan and Indonesia which made it effective for the expert-network to build upon the existing practice. The visualization and communication function of ICT innovation also promoted the interactive communication among stakeholders and agencies as well as with international knowledge experts. However, the most important aspect which favored the successful implementation of the MRV system could be attributed to the dual-role of the expert-network. The case study revealed that expert-networks acted as agents of scientific knowledge and at the same time as interlocutors between international, national, and subnational governments. In policy terms, such a double role could be achieved only in a collaborative policy subsystem where respective coalitions worked in harmony to reach their objective. By bridging the different agencies at different tiers of a government, expert networks were also able to bridge the different information silos which were otherwise held within the hands of a single agency or ministry. In this way, expert-network could play the role of agents of science-policy linkages between national and subnational governments and at the same time act as science-policy boundary workers. Within a hybrid climate policy architecture, the role of expert-networks would be more prominent in bringing decisive action on the ground.

Expert-networks could also help transform these local societal actions into the requirements at the national and international level and thereby strengthen linkages at all levels.

The case study also reflected a collaborative climate policy subsystem in Indonesia, where there existed a general consensus among the various stakeholders on the need to strengthen bottom up efforts in climate change mitigation actions. The cooperation between Bogor City officials, local citizens with the expert-network was a proof of a collaborative policy subsystem at a local level. Similar observations were noted at the national level, especially from the positive commitment from the ministry of environment and forests of Indonesia.

Another notable finding of the case study was about the adoption of a technology tool. The technological context of the tool was less relevant compared to the policy context. In other words, the implementation of a MRV tool was conditional to the policy context. A collaborative policy subsystem and the role of expert-network in linking up the different jurisdictional bodies at national and local level led to the development of the MRV tool and its successful pilot implementation and not just its technological merit. The technology should be an enabling tool for policy making at local, national and international level.

It was also observed that, for establishing CBIT, MRV and meeting NDCs, a policy level consensus between the various ministries at the central and local government was crucial. Such propositions were also supported by Korhonen-Kurki et al. [¹¹] emphasizing the critical role of subnational governments and institutions as pivotal in MRV implementation, especially in countries such as Indonesia where decentralization gave subnational governments the authority. As a step toward providing a larger role for expert-networks in framing a future CBIT mechanism, the type of the policy subsystem (collaborative or adversarial policy subsystems) should be first understood. Based on the type of policy subsystem, CBIT process and MRV systems should be combined with various climate model projects to facilitate a future low-carbon development pathway. The data obtained through MRV can also enrich such models and can then help to periodically identify the gap between the real GHG emissions, the tentative target and the future target. Based on such a mechanism, the data-policy measures can be adjusted and modified periodically so that appropriate low carbon pathway can be explored.

The thematic areas of collaborative research topics in the Bogor MRV project included monitoring, modeling, visualization of energy usage and consumption, GHG measurement through satellite data, and forest emission monitoring using Satellite sensing data [³⁸]. It will be further developed as an explorative process or exploratory pathway where scientific truth and socio-economic reality are equally considered in meeting the emission reduction targets (Fig. 7). Such a process can also bring better consensus between scientist and policy makers in bringing out a feasible outcome in meeting NDCs.

Though the case study has outlined the importance of MRV systems, science-policy linkages and the role of expert-network in bridging cooperation within an MRV mechanism, it should be noted that ideas, beliefs, and norms are conceived of as being internal to individuals. Hence, more studies need to be conducted to understand whether similar situations apply with the development and implementation of other MRV tools within the same context and geographical region.

The case study also provides a framework for global cooperation between expert-networks in developed and developing countries in supporting and implementing an MRV or CBIT mechanism.

References

[1] UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 2016–04–10,

[2] UNFCCC. Handbook on Measurement, Reporting and Verification for developing country Parties. 2014,

[3] Bellassen V, Stephan N, Afriat M, Alberola E, Barker A, Chang J P, Chiquet C, Cochran I, Deheza M, Dimopoulos C, Foucherot C, Jacquier G, Morel R, Robinson R, Shishlov I. Monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions in the climate economy. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(4): 319–328

[4] Baker D J, Richards G, Grainger A, Gonzalez P, Brown S, DeFries R, Held A, Kellndorfer J, Ndunda P, Ojima D, Skrovseth P E, Souza C Jr, Stolle F. Achieving forest carbon information with higher certainty: a five-part plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 2010, 13(3): 249–260

[5] GEF. Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT). 2016–03–11,

[6] Chalmers D A. Decision networks and quasi-citizens: who deliberates, where? Policy Studies, 2015, 36(3): 345–358

[7] Kunseler E M, Tuinstra W. Navigating the authority paradox: practising objectivity in environmental expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 67: 1–7

[8] Rietig K. ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences, 2014, 47(2): 141–160

[9] Stoutenborough J W, Bromley-Trujillo R, Vedlitz A. How to win friends and influence people: climate scientists’ perspectives on their relationship with and influence on government officials. Journal of Public Policy, 2015, 35(2): 269–296

[10] Overpeck J T, Meehl G A, Bony S, Easterling D R. Climate data challenges in the 21st century. Science, 2011, 331(6018): 700–702

[11] Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A E, Atmadja S, Thu Thuy P, Schofield L. Multiple levels and multiple challenges for measurement, reporting and verification of REDD+. International Journal of the Commons, 2013, 7(2): 344–366

[12] Lee T M, Markowitz E M, Howe P D, Ko C Y, Leiserowitz A A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(11): 1014–1020

[13] Widerberg O, Pattberg P. International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance: raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC? Global Policy, 2015, 6(1): 45–56

[14] Stavins R. A challenge for the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. 2015–01–14,

[15] Miles E L, Snover A K, Whitely Binder L C, Sarachik E S, Mote P W, Mantua N. An approach to designing a national climate service. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2006, 103(52): 19616–19623

[16] Hoppe R, Wesselink A, Cairns R. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013, 4(4): 283–300

[17] Szarka J. From Climate advocacy to public engagement: an exploration of the roles of environmental non-governmental organisations. Climate (Basel), 2013, 1(1): 12–27

[18] Duwe M. The climate action network: a glance behind the curtains of a transnational NGO network. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 2001, 10(2): 177–189

[19] Scholz V. How GIZ supports partner countries in the preparation of their INDCs. 2016–05–25,

[20] Bulkeley H, Andonova L B, Betsill M M, Compagnon D, Hale T. Theoretical perspectives on transnational governance. In: Transnational Climate Change Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 38–60

[21] Ranson M, Stavins R N. Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience. Climate Policy, 2016, 16(3): 284–300

[22] Bodansky D M, Hoedl S A, Metcalf G E, Stavins R N. Facilitating linkage of climate policies through the Paris outcome. Climate Policy, 2016, 16(8): 956–972

[23] Sabatier P A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 1988, 21(2–3): 129–168

[24] Weible C M, Pattison A, Sabatier P A. Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 2010, 13(6): 522–534

[25] Star S L, Ruhleder K. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 1996, 7(1): 111–134

[26] Star S L, Griesemer J R. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19(3): 387–420

[27] Gieryn T F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48(6): 781–795

[28] Hoppe R. Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, 2009, 6(3–4): 235–263

[29] Slinger J H, Hilders M, Juizo D. The practice of transboundary decision making on the incomati river: elucidating underlying factors and their implications for institutional design. Ecology and Society, 2010, 15(1): 1

[30] Djalante R, Thomalla F, Sinapoy M, Carnegie M. Building resilience to natural hazards in Indonesia: progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards, 2012, 62(3): 779–803

[31] Lewis B D. Urbanization and economic growth in Indonesia: good news, bad news and (possible) local government mitigation. Regional Studies, 2014, 48(1): 192–207

[32] Government_of_Indonesia. Presidential Decree of the President of Republic of Indonesia.. 2011,

[33] Stone D. Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 2004, 11(3): 545–566

[34] Morizane J, Enoki T, Hase N, Setiawan B. Government policies and institutions for climate change mitigation and its monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. In: Kaneko S, Kawanishi M. eds. Climate Change Policies and Challenges in Indonesia. Tokyo: Springer Japan, 2016, 27–54

[35] Sugiarto B A. Developing innovative MRV system to support the realization of eco/green campus IPB. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015,

[36] Boer R. Developing innovative MRV system to support the realization of eco/green campus IPB. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015

[37] Green_Television (Producer). Forum on Eco City Bogor through Green Innovation. 2015–10–14,

[38] Fujita T. International collaborative research for innovative modelling and monitoring for low carbon society and eco-cities in Indonesia’. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature