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

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