Advertisement

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

  • Remi Chandran
  • Tsuyoshi Fujita
  • Minoru Fujii
  • Shuichi Ashina
  • Kei Gomi
  • Rizaldi Boer
  • Muhammad Ardiansyah
  • Seiya Maki
Research Article

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 MRVimplementation 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 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11708_2018_559_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (69 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 70 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 2016–04–10, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    UNFCCC. Handbook on Measurement, Reporting and Verification for developing country Parties. 2014, https://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_natcom_/application/pdf/non-annex_i_mrv_-handbook.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. 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): 319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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): 249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    GEF. Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT). 2016–03–11, https://www.thegef.org/topics/capacity-building-initiativetransparency-cbitGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chalmers D A. Decision networks and quasi-citizens: who deliberates, where? Policy Studies, 2015, 36(3): 345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunseler E M, Tuinstra W. Navigating the authority paradox: practising objectivity in environmental expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 67: 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rietig K. ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences, 2014, 47(2): 141–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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): 269–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Overpeck J T, Meehl G A, Bony S, Easterling D R. Climate data challenges in the 21st century. Science, 2011, 331(6018): 700–702CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 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): 344–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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): 1014–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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): 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stavins R. A challenge for the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. 2015–01–14,http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2015/02/02/a-challenge-for-the-2015-paris-climate-agreement/Google Scholar
  15. 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): 19616–19623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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): 283–300Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szarka J. From Climate advocacy to public engagement: an exploration of the roles of environmental non-governmental organisations. Climate (Basel), 2013, 1(1): 12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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): 177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scholz V. How GIZ supports partner countries in the preparation of their INDCs. 2016–05–25, https://unfccc.int/files/bodies/application/ pdf/giz-presentation-briefing_on_indc_support-final.pdfGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 38–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ranson M, Stavins R N. Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience. Climate Policy, 2016, 16 (3): 284–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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): 956–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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): 129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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): 522–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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): 111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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): 387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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): 781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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): 235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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): 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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): 779–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis B D. Urbanization and economic growth in Indonesia: good news, bad news and (possible) local government mitigation. Regional Studies, 2014, 48(1): 192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Government_of_Indonesia. Presidential Decree of the President of Republic of Indonesia. 2011, http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/PUUdoc/ 17271/Keppres0252011.pdfGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stone D. Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 2004, 11(3): 545–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, 27–54Google Scholar
  35. 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, http://www.iges.or.jp/isap/2015/pdf/pl-8/PL8_2_BimaAryaSugiarto. pdfGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 2015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Green_Television (Producer). Forum on Eco City Bogor through Green Innovation. 2015–10–14, http://greentv.ipb.ac.id/videos/ forum-on-eco-city-bogor-through-green-innovation/Google Scholar
  38. 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, 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remi Chandran
    • 1
  • Tsuyoshi Fujita
    • 1
  • Minoru Fujii
    • 1
  • Shuichi Ashina
    • 1
  • Kei Gomi
    • 1
  • Rizaldi Boer
    • 2
  • Muhammad Ardiansyah
    • 2
  • Seiya Maki
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Social and Environmental System ResearchNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management in Southeast Asia and Pacific (CCROM-SEAP)Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)BogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations