2009 Amsterdam Conference - Earth System Governance Project · 2013. 9. 4. · 2009 Amsterdam...

2009 Amsterdam Conference

on the Human Dimensions of

Global Environmental Change

Earth System Governance

People, Places and the Planet

Volendam near Amsterdam, 2-4 December 2009

Conference Programme

2009 Amsterdam Conference—Programme

2

Contents

Hosts and Co-hosts 3

Welcome Address 6

Conference Team 8

International Review Panel 10

Contact Details 11

Conference Venue 12

Facilities at the Conference Venue 13

Hotels 14

Public Transport and Conference Transport 15

Programme Overview 19

Conference Streams 23

Programme Tuesday, 1 December 25

Programme Wednesday, 2 December 26

Programme Thursday, 3 December 71

Programme Friday, 4 December 115


3

2009 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change


People, Places and the Planet

Volendam near Amsterdam, 2-4 December 2009

Hosts

Earth System Governance Project, a core project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP)

Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam

SENSE—The Netherlands Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment


4

Co-hosts and Sponsors

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)—Action on Transformation of Global Environmental Governance (IS 0802)

Living with Water

GLOGOV.ORG The Global Governance Project

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)


5

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)

Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC)

Tokyo Institute of Technology

Endorsements

International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP)

World Academy of Art and Science


6

Welcome

Dear colleagues,

On behalf of the entire conference team, I welcome you to the 2009 Amsterdam Conference on the

Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change ‘Earth System Governance: People, Places and

the Planet’.

As you have noticed by now (perhaps to your surprise!), the 2009 Amsterdam Conference is being

held in a convention centre in the heart of rural Holland. This is a break from the general practice of

hosting conferences in centrally located, large (and thereby more anonymous) hotels or university

campuses.

We see our conference venue, however, as eminently suited to the subject of our deliberations—

earth system transformation and governance. The environs around the conference venue perfectly

illustrate the long history of human-nature co-evolution in this region.

Just a few metres from the conference hotel you find the Beemster, a unique, pioneering land-

reclamation project of the early 17th century that is now a UNESCO World Heritage site. The specific

manner in which roads and canals were laid out in this re-claimed, fertile land has been exported to

several parts of the globe, and can still be found, for instance, in the street patterns of lower Manhat-

tan. The continuous battle against the sea is evidenced in multiple place names around the confer-

ence hotel that indicate past dike-breaks and human suffering (such as wiel and waal). The last time

the dikes nearby gave way and the surrounding area was flooded, was in the winter of 1916, with

several casualties. As a consequence, the sea in this area was closed off from the North Sea in the

1930s, turning the former ‘Southern Sea’ into the ‘Lake IJssel’, now the largest lake in Western Europe.

Many historic cities that you will see around the conference venue bear witness also to the long sea-

faring tradition of this region. Yet today, all former harbour towns are closed off from the ocean, and

the once prosperous fishing industries have given way to the overarching interest of protecting the

country from floods. If you want to experience more of these unique lands below the sea level, you

may want to join our social programme on 5 December that will take you along some of the most

impressive and interesting sights in the region. You could also visit the Delta Works in the South of the

Netherlands, erected after the great floods in 1953 that claimed 1800 lives, or the Zuiderzee museum

close-by, which allows you to experience first-hand the rhythms and practices of daily life in the past.

Or ask your Dutch colleagues about the Delta Commission, which only last year proposed innovative

new ways of protecting the land in times of earth system transformation and sea-level rise.

When we planned this conference, we expected a relatively mid-sized event, given the financial crisis

and ‘competition’ from a number of outstanding academic and diplomatic conferences this year.

Yet the response to our call for papers was exceptional, and this 2009 Amsterdam Conference will be

the largest gathering in the series of European Conferences on the Human Dimensions of Global Envi-

ronmental Change to date. We are indeed gratified by this show of interest and commitment from

what is a growing, vibrant and ever more cohesive global environmental change and earth system

governance research community.

The conference also promises to be exceptional in the quality of the papers to be presented. Follow-

ing double-blind review of each abstract by at least four reviewers, we have accepted 250 papers for

presentation. The overall acceptance rate was less than 50 percent, despite the fact that the overall

quality of paper submissions was judged to be extremely high compared to other conferences. The


7

quality of the conference is further enhanced by the more than twenty prominent colleagues who

have agreed to share their views on earth system governance in our eight semi-plenary sessions.

This conference is also unique in that it is not only a singular event but also serves as the launch of a

ten-year international research programme on global environmental change, the Earth System Gov-

ernance Project. This project, planned over about two years with the involvement of many confer-

ence participants, was formally accepted in October 2008 by the International Human Dimensions

Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) as one of its ‘core projects’, scheduled to last

through 2018. The 2009 Amsterdam Conference signals the launch of this new world-wide research

network. Additional conferences organized or supported by the Earth System Governance Project will

be announced in the closing plenary on 4 December.

This conference is also exceptional in the generosity and wide support it has received from the inter-

national community, in particular from our co-hosts, all of whom have contributed to its planning and

success not only by shaping parts of the programme, but also by helping to cover some part of the

conference costs. This generous support allowed us to run a three-day conference with relatively

moderate registration fees (which include, unlike many other conferences, four meals, refreshments,

complete carbon offsetting, and local transportation). I wish to thank here especially the Institute for

Environmental Studies (IVM) of the VU University Amsterdam and the Netherlands Research School for

Socio-economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE), the two main hosts of this event. In

addition, we are very grateful to the co-hosting institutions for their generous support: the European

Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)—Action on Transformation of Global Environmental

Governance (IS 0802); the Dutch research programme ‘Living with Water’; The Global Governance

Project Glogov.org; the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan; the Lund University

Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Sweden; the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

(PBL); the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW); the Stockholm Resilience Centre

(SRC), Sweden; and the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.

Many thanks also to the colleagues who helped in shaping the programme by organizing all papers in

six conference streams and more than sixty panels: Peter Haas and Norichika Kanie (Architecture

stream); Michele Betsill and Philipp Pattberg (Agency stream); Carl Folke, Louis Lebel, Victor Galaz

and Dave Huitema (Adaptiveness stream); John Dryzek and Aarti Gupta (Accountability and Legiti-

macy stream); Lennart Olsson (Allocation and Access stream), and James Meadowcroft and Arthur

Petersen (Theoretical and Methodological Foundations stream).

Last but not least, a very special thanks to the core conference team that made this event with al-

most 400 participants possible: to Ingrid Boas, the overall conference manager, as well as to Hilko Blok

(website); Eleni Dellas (student volunteers); Tineke Reus (logistics), Frans van der Woerd (financial con-

trolling), and Ruben Zondervan, the Executive Officer of the Earth System Governance Project. They

have all gone far beyond the call of duty in ensuring the smooth functioning of this event.

I wish you all an enjoyable and fruitful 2009 Amsterdam Conference!

On behalf of all hosts, co-hosts and organizers,

Frank Biermann

Chair, 2009 Amsterdam Conference


8

Conference Team

Chair

Frank Biermann, Chair, Earth System Governance Project; and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Conference Steering Committee

Michele Betsill, Colorado State University, United States of America

Joyeeta Gupta, VU University Amsterdam, and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, The Netherlands

Klaus Jacob, Berlin Conference Steering Committee; and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Norichika Kanie, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Louis Lebel, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Rik Leemans, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Diana Liverman, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Heike Schroeder, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Bernd Siebenhüner, University of Oldenburg, Germany

Susana Camargo Vieira, Universidade de Itaúna, Brazil

Pius Z. Yanda, University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Associate Faculty, Earth System Governance Project

Arun Agrawal, University of Michigan, United States of America

Steinar Andresen, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway

Ken Conca, University of Maryland, United States of America

Leila da Costa Ferreira, University of Campinas, Brazil

Bharat Desai, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India

John S. Dryzek, Australian National University, Australia

Carl Folke, Stockholm University, and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden

Julia S. Guivant, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil

Peter M. Haas, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States of America

Hironori Hamanaka, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

Andrew Jordan, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia

Elizabeth L. Malone, Joint Global Change Research Institute, United States of America

James Meadowcroft, Carleton University, Canada

Ronald B. Mitchell, University of Oregon, United States of America

Peter Newell, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

Sebastian Oberthür, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

Hiroshi Ohta, Waseda University, Japan

Lennart Olsson, Lund University, Sweden

R.B. Singh, University of Delhi, India

Will Steffen, The Australian National University, Australia

Simon Tay, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Laurence Tubiana, Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (IDDRI), France

Kazuhiro Ueta, Kyoto University, Japan

Arild Underdal, University of Oslo, Norway

Oran R. Young, University of California at Santa Barbara, United States of America


9

Conference Manager

Ingrid Boas, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Organization Team at the VU University Amsterdam

Hilko Blok, website management Eleni Dellas, student volunteers Tineke Reus, conference logistics Peter Vincze, intern Frans van der Woerd, financial controller

Earth System Governance International Project Office

Ruben Zondervan, executive officer

Interns

Svetla Baeva Amy Hochstetler Jason Grady Roxana Munteanu

Student Volunteers

Inés de Águeda Corneloup Dil Bahadur Khatri Francois Barbe Haran Bar-on Vadim Biryukov Mariska Bottema Carina Diedrich Katharina Hock Livia Hollins Marissa Ingalls Michael Leutelt A.S. Ní Riain Nikolay Nikolou Maria-Cristina Popescu Johannes Sattler Dimitry Savelau Caroline Seagle Magdalena Sypczynska Maria do Rosário Palha Jaap Rozema Paulina Victoria González Pichardo Andriana Vlachou


10

International Review Panel All abstracts submitted to the 2009 Amsterdam Conference have been reviewed by at least four members of the International Review Panel, allotted on a random basis. The review was double blind. The reviewers ranked abstracts on a scale from five (excellent/highly appro-priate) to one (not appropriate/rejection). The organizers calculated an average score for all abstracts and ranked them accordingly. All abstracts with a score of 3.4 and higher were accepted, which equals a rejection rate of well over 50 percent.

We thank the following colleagues for participating in the review:

Paulina Aldunce Ide, Universidad de Chile

Steinar Andresen, Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Marlen Arnold, Technische Universität München

Jörg Balsiger, Swiss Federal Institute of Technol-ogy

Steffen Bauer, German Development Institute

Michele M. Betsill, Colorado State University

Frank Biermann, VU University Amsterdam

Hans Bressers, University of Twente

Harriet Bulkeley, Durham University

Susana Camargo Vieira, University of Itauna

Jennifer Clapp, University of Waterloo

Daniel Compagnon, Sciences Po Bordeaux

Peña del Valle, Center of Atmospheric Sciences, UNAM

Shobhakar Dhakal, Global Carbon Project

Lorraine Elliott, Australian National University

Maria Falaleeva, University College Cork UCC

Peter Feindt, University of Hamburg

Petro Fidelman, James Cook University

Itay Fischhendler, Hebrew University

Victor Galaz, Stockholm University

Andrew Gouldson, University of Leeds

Roberto Guimarães, Fundação Getulio Vargas

Julia S. Guivant, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Joyeeta Gupta, UNESCO-IHE

Aarti Gupta, Wageningen University and Re-search Centre

Dave Huitema, VU University Amsterdam

Christina Inoue, University of Brasília

Eduard Interwies, InterSus—Sustainability Services

Klaus Jacob, Freie Universität Berlin

Helge Jörgens, Universität Konstanz

Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská, Slovak Academy of Sciences

Louis Lebel, Chiang Mai University

Diana Liverman, University of Arizona

Elizabeth L. Malone, Joint Global Change Re-search Institute

Alberto Martinelli, University of Milano

Ronald B. Mitchell, University of Oregon

Arthur Mol, Wageningen University

Peter Newell, University of East Anglia

Annika Nilsson, Stockholm Environment Institute

Sebastian Oberthür, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Per Olsson, Stockholm Resilience Centre

Henk Overbeek, VU University Amsterdam

Philipp Pattberg, VU University Amsterdam

Arthur Petersen, Netherlands Environmental As-sessment Agency

Heike Schroeder, Oxford University

Irina Shmeleva, Saint Petersburg State University

Bernd Siebenhüner, Universität Oldenburg

R.B. Singh, University of Delhi

Jon B. Skjærseth, Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Detlef Sprinz, Potsdam Institute for Climate Im-pact Research

Will Steffen, Australian National University

David Tabara, Universitat Autònoma de Barce-lona

Kyla Tienhaara, Australian National University

Nicolien van der Grijp, VU Univeristy Amsterdam

Paul van Seters, University of Tilburg

Stacy VanDeveer, University of New Hampshire

Eduardo Viola, University of Brasilia

Wouter Werner, VU University Amsterdam

Jorgen Wettestad, Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Pius Z. Yanda, University of Dar es Salaam

Linda J. Yarr, George Washington University

Oran R. Young, University of California at Santa Barbara

Fariborz Zelli, German Development Institute


11

Contact Details

Contact

Phone: +31-20-5989 595 Emergency numbers: +31-6-21654448 and +31-6-41972344 (during conference period only) Fax: +31-20-5989 553 E-mail: [email protected] Post: Ingrid Boas Institute for Environmental Studies

VU University Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1087 1081 HV Amsterdam

The Netherlands Web: www.ac2009.earthsystemgovernance.org


12

Conference Venue The 2009 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change is held in a retreat centre in the middle of the green ´polder´ landscape of North Holland, very close to Amsterdam and close to the UNESCO World Heritage Site ´Beemster Polder´. The venue is about 25-30 minutes by bus from Amsterdam Central Station, and 45-60 minutes from Schiphol Airport. The venue is nearby picturesque old harbour towns and fishing villages, such as Volendam and Marken. For more information on transport, see page 15 of this conference programme. Address:

Hotel Volendam Wagenweg 1 1145 PW Katwoude The Netherlands

Phone: +31-29-9365 5656 (press 2, and ask for Mirko van Duijse) Website: www.hotelvolendam.com Map of the Conference Venue


13

Facilities at the Conference Venue

Meals and Drinks at Conference Venue

The conference registration fee covers drinks (Dutch distillation only) during the opening reception, refreshments (coffee, tea and soda drinks) during the breaks and all lunches on 2, 3 and 4 December. The conference dinner on 4 December is included as well. Outside the breaks, one can buy drinks at the bar or in the restaurant. You will be asked to pay directly when ordering. For dinners and evening drinks on 1, 2 and 3 December vouchers can be bought at the hotel reception desk (see map conference venue, number 12) or at the additional sales point (see map number 14). By means of the vouchers, dinner and drinks can be obtained in the restaurant. Voucher pricing is as following:

- One drink: 2.00€ (Dutch distillation only) - Starter: 7.50€ - Main course: 12.50€ - Dessert: 5.00€ - ´Passe-Partout` 65.00€ (covers a 3 course dinner on December 1,2 and 3)

Office and internet facilities

Room 6 (the ‘Boardroom’, see map conference venue, number 6) can be used as a work-ing room (except on 2 December 15.15-17.15). The room has one computer available with free internet access. A second computer with free internet access is available in the hotel lobby. Wireless access cards can be bought at the hotel reception desk.

Printing and copy facilities

All papers will be posted on our website for download. We will not provide hardcopies of presented papers in a paper room. The conference hotel provides copy and printing facili-ties (black and white only) for 0.08€ per page. If you want to use these facilities, please ask a staff member from the conference hotel at the hotel reception desk (see map confer-ence venue, number 12).


14

Hotels Hotel Volendam (van der Valk) Address:

Hotel Volendam Wagenweg 1 1145 PW Katwoude The Netherlands

Phone: +31-29-9365 5656 (press 2, and ask for Mirko van Duijse) Website: www.hotelvolendam.com Marinapark Hotel Address:

Pieterman 1 1131 PW Volendam The Netherlands

Phone: +31-29-9604010 Website: http://www.roompotparken.nl/vakantieparken/552225/marinapark_volendam/overview.htm Hotel Old Dutch Address:

Haven 142 1131 EW Volendam The Netherlands

Phone: +31-29-9399888 Website: www.olddutch.nl Hotel Spaander Address:

Haven 15-19 1131 EP Volendam The Netherlands

Phone: +31-29-9363595 Website: www.hotelspaander.com


15

Public Transport and Conference Transport Text in Italics gives the Dutch translation or additional information.

Schiphol Airport to Amsterdam Central Station

Schiphol Amsterdam Centraal

- Follow signs Trains / Train tickets/ Meeting point. - Buy a train ticket to Amsterdam Central station (Amsterdam Centraal ) in the hall

with the red and white coloured meeting point, either at the yellow ticket-vending machines (ATM cards and credit cards accepted) or at the ticket counter of the Dutch railways (‘NS’).

- We advise to also buy a ‘strippenkaart’ for the bus from Amsterdam Central Station

to the Conference Venue at the ‘AKO bookstore’ located next to the ticket counter.

- Trains leave roughly every 9 minutes from platforms 1 and 2 between 6:00 hrs and

midnight. Between midnight and 6:00 hrs, they run every half hour.

Amsterdam Central Station to Conference Venue

Amsterdam Centraal Hotel Volendam

address: Wagenweg 1, Katwoude

Leave the Amsterdam Central Station at the city side, exit east (uitgang oost—see map below). Walk east towards Oosterdokskade. Unfortunately, the station and area around it are under reconstruction, making finding the bus stop a bit tedious. This is why student vol-unteers will be at the station to assist you on 1 December from 9.00 hrs until 18.00 hrs and in the morning of 2 December (from 8.30 hrs until noon).

From the bus stop near Amsterdam Central Station the following bus lines, run by the Arriva company, stop at Hotel Volendam: 112, 116, 118 (all destination ‘Edam’) and bus 110 (des-tination ‘Volendam’). Bus 114 (destination ‘Hoorn’) stops at stop De Zedde, a 3-minute walk to the hotel.

Buses run from 5:39 hrs until 1:03 hrs leave every 10-15 minutes. Trip duration is about 30 min-utes.

Ask the bus driver to notify you when the bus arrives at your destination, Hotel Volendam.

The bus fare is 7 ‘strips’ (strippen), which is about €3.50. Show the bus driver your strip-penkaart, and s/he will stamp it. If you do not have a ‘strippenkaart’, you can buy a ‘Water-land ticket’ with the chauffeur for €7 (the Waterland ticket gives you free travel for one day within the area Waterland).

For your information: The ‘strippenkaart’ is currently being replaced by the ‘OV chip card’. In the transition period, both payment options can be used in buses and trams. The only exception is the Amsterdam metro, which can be used only with an OV chip card. For more information on the OV chip card, please visit: http://9292ov.nl/, choose UK in the top of the page for English.


16

Map Amsterdam Central Station

Bus stops ‘De Zedde’ and ‘Hotel Volendam’

Hotel Volendam


17

Conference shuttle service to the surrounding overflow hotels

For the hotels Spaander, Old Dutch and Marina Park we run a shuttle service.

On 1 December, there is a shuttle service towards the Conference Venue, where the re-ception will be held. Pick up for Hotel Old Dutch and Hotel Spaander guests is at the park-ing of Hotel Spaander at 17.00 hrs and 17.40 hrs The pick up for Marina Park Hotel guests is 17.15 hrs and 17.55 hrs at the bus stop Pr. Margrietstraat (see map below). The return shuttle service from Hotel Volendam to the Hotels Marina Park, Spaander and Old Dutch runs at 22.00 hrs and 22.40 hrs.

On 1 December, door-to-door transport will be available during the day for guests picking up their vouchers for their stay at the overflow hotels, Hotel Spaander, Hotel Old Dutch and Hotel Marina Park.

On 2, 3 and 4 December there is a shuttle service towards the Conference Venue. Pick up for Hotel Old Dutch and Hotel Spaander guests is at the parking of Hotel Spaander at 8.00 hrs and 8.30 hrs. Return shuttle service on 2 and 3 December towards the overflow ho-tels runs at 22.00 hrs and 22.40 hrs. On 4 December there is a shuttle service from Hotel Vo-lendam towards the dinner location Hotel Spaander, running at 19.05 hrs and 19.30 hrs. Re-turn shuttle service is available to Hotel Marinapark and Hotel Volendam, timing to be de-termined.

Guests staying at the overflow hotels will receive a detailed overview for the shuttle service when picking up their hotel voucher in Hotel Volendam.

Public transport to Volendam and overflow hotels

Buses 110 and 116 stop at the bus stop ‘Hotel Volendam’ and go from there into Volendam. For Hotel Marina Park (address: Pieterman 1), you need to get off at the stop Prinses Mar-grietstraat. For Hotel Spaander and Hotel Old Dutch, you need to get off at stop Julianaweg or Zeestraat in Volendam Center, depending on the bus line (line 110 stops at Zeestraat, line 116 stops at Julianaweg). From the stops it is a 5-minutes walk to Hotel Spaander (address: Haven 15–19) and Old Dutch (address: Haven 142). Despite the num-bering both hotels are merely 150 meters away from each other.

The bus fare is €1 when buying a ticket from the chauffeur. You can also use your ‘strip-penkaart’: two strippen, which equals €0.97. Two ‘strippen’ and the €1 ticket are valid for one hour of travel within Volendam.

Map bus stop Prinses Margrietstraat (across from Hotel Marina Park)


18

Map, bus stops Julianaweg and Zeestraat

Taxi transport Taxi transport is expensive in the Netherlands. Taxis are available, if needed, at the airport and all train stations. In case you need a taxi in Volendam we recommend RSR Taxi and Touringcar Services +31 (0)299 - 40 18 24 or ask at the hotel reception desk.


19

Programme Overview

Tuesday, 1 December

10.00 – 22.00

Main Entrance, Conference Venue

Registration, 2009 Amsterdam Conference

18.00 – 19.30

Restaurant, Conference Venue

Welcome Reception, 2009 Amsterdam Conference

20.15 – …

Restaurant, Conference Venue

Informal Conference Dinner


20

Wednesday, 2 December

9.00 – 10.30

Room: 1, Zuiderzeezaal

Opening Plenary

Chair: Roberto Pereira Guimarães, IHDP, and the Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

Frank Biermann, Earth System Governance Project, SENSE Research School, and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Rik Leemans, Earth System Science Partnership, SENSE Research School, and Wageningen University, The Netherlands

10.30 – 10.45 Coffee/Tea Break

10.45 – 12.15


Semi-Plenary I: Architecture of Earth System Governance

Co-hosts: Tokyo Institute of Technology and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Semi-Plenary II: Adaptiveness and Innovation in Earth System Governance

Co-host: Stockholm Resilience Centre and the EU Marie Curie Programme

12.15 – 13.30 Lunch Break

13.45 – 15.15

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Architecture—1: Architecture and Agency beyond the State

Room: 7, Volendammerzaal

Agency—1: Agency in the Energy Sector


Adaptiveness—1: Urban Governance and Vulnerability

Room: 5, Rooszaal Accountability and Legitimacy—1: Democracy, Law and Earth System Governance

Room: 4, Edammerzaal Allocation and Access—1: Allocation and Accountability in Water Governance

Room: 3, Beemsterzaal

Architecture—2: Intersection between Architecture and Accountability

15.30 – 17.00


Architecture—3: Forest Governance (1)

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Agency—2: Agency in Water Governance (1)

Room: 8

Adaptiveness—2: Social Learning and Collaboration

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Accountability and Legitimacy—2: Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (1): Innovative Mechanisms


Allocation and Access—2: Resource Allocation

Room: 4, Edammerzaal

Theoretical and Methodological Foundations—1: Reframing Environmental Governance


Architecture—4: Institutional Linkages across Scales


17.30 – 19.00

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Architecture—5: New Concepts in Environmental Governance


Agency—3: Agency in Water Governance (2)

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Adaptiveness—3: Managing Climate Risks and Disasters


Theoretical and Methodologi-cal Foundations—2: Governance, Instruments and Learning


Architecture—6: Policy Integration and Fragmentation (1)


Agency—4: Agency in the Private Sector

19.45 – … Restaurant, Conference Venue



21

Thursday, 3 December

09:00 – 10.30

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Architecture—7: Understanding Multilateral Environmental Agreements as Governance Mechanisms


Agency—5: NGO Influence in Earth System Governance


Adaptiveness—4: Water Governance


Accountability and Legitim-acy—3: Integrated Climate Governance: Accountability and Effectiveness


Architecture—8: Forest Governance (2)

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Agency—6: Managing Earth System Governance


11.00 – 12.30


Semi-Plenary III: Agency in Earth System Governance Co-host: EU COST Action ‘Transformation of Global

Environmental Governance’

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Semi-Plenary IV: Perspectives from the Global Change Programmes—Governance: What, Where, Whom & Where Next? Co-host: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global

Environmental Change (IHDP)


13.45 – 15.15


Semi-Plenary V: Accountability in Earth System Governance— Turning the Lens on Transparency, Legitimacy and Democracy

Co-host: EU COST Action ‘Transformation of Global Environmental Governance’

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Semi-Plenary VI: Adaptive Governance—the Role of Policy Entrepreneurs

Co-host: Living with Water

15.30 – 17.00


Architecture—9: Climate Change in the European Un-ion: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation


Agency—7: Local Agency in Earth System Governance


Adaptiveness—5: International Institutions and Politics


Theoretical and Methodo-logical Foundations—3: Adaptation and Resilience

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Agency—8: The Political Economy of Earth System Governance

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Adaptiveness—6: Vulnerability, Coping and Displacement


17.30 – 19.00


Architecture—10: Political Knowledge in Earth System Governance

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Agency—9: Private Agents of Earth System Governance


Adaptiveness—7: Regional Adaptation to Climate Change


Accountability and Legiti-macy—4: Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (2): Multi-Stakeholder Processes

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Allocation and Access—3: Environmental Justice


Architecture—11: Bilateral and Multilateral Financial Governance and Climate Change

Room: 8

Market Place

19.45 – … Restaurant, Conference Venue



22

Friday, 4 December

09.00 – 10.30


Architecture—12: Governing Biotechnology

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Agency—10: Agency in Global Climate Governance

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Adaptiveness—8: Local Institu-tions and Resource Manage-ment


Accountability and Legiti-macy—5: Transparency and Earth System Governance: Promise and Perils


Theoretical and Methodological Foundations—4: Earth System Governance: Critical Reflections


Architecture—13: Policy Integra-tion and Fragmentation (2)

Room: 8

Agency—11: Urban Planners as Agents of Earth System Govern-ance


10.45 – 12.15


Semi-Plenary VII: New Theories for Earth System Governance Co-host: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Semi-Plenary VIII: Allocation and Access in Earth System Governance

Co-host: LUCSUS—Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies


13.45 – 15.15


Architecture—14: Architecture for Vertical Interplay

Room: 7, Volendammerzaal Agency—12: Actors in Earth Sys-tem Governance

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Adaptiveness—9: Vulnerability and Adaptation in Agriculture and Food Systems


Allocation and Access—4: Global Climate Governance beyond 2012


Adaptiveness—10: Water Quan-tity Management

15.30 – 17.00


Architecture—15: Market-Based Approaches to Govern-ing Climate Change


Agency—13: Networks in Earth System Governance

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

Adaptiveness—11: Managing Ecosystems for Biodiversity Use


Accountability and Legiti-macy—6: Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (3): The Local and the Global


Allocation and Access—5: Distributive Effects of Global Policies

Room: 5, Rooszaal

Theoretical and Methodological Foundations—5: Modelling and Measurement


17.30 – 19.00


Closing Plenary: The Earth System Governance Vision Factory ‘I Have a Dream’

Co-host: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)

Co-Chairs: Roberto Pereira Guimarães, International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Brazil Frank Biermann, Earth System Governance Project, SENSE Research School, and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Speakers: Keynote Speakers and Members of the Steering Committee and

Associate Faculty of the Earth System Governance Project

20.00 – … Bus transfer: 19.05

and 19.30

Hotel Spaander

Conference Dinner


23

Conference Streams

Theme 1: Architecture of Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: PETER HAAS AND NORICHIKA KANIE

Panel 1 Architecture and Agency beyond the State Chair Heike Schroeder Panel 2 Intersection between Architecture and

Accountability Chair Fariborz Zelli

Panel 3 Forest Governance (1) Chair Peter Leigh Taylor Panel 4 Institutional Linkages across Scales Chair Peter Haas Panel 5 New Concepts in Environmental Governance Chair Steffen Bauer Panel 6 Policy Integration and Fragmentation (1) Chair Klaus Jacob Panel 7 Understanding Multilateral Environmental

Agreements as Governance Mechanisms Chair Atsushi Ishii

Panel 8 Forest Governance (2) Chair Peter Feindt Panel 9 Climate Change in the European Union:

Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation

Chair Steinar Andresen

Panel 10 Political Knowledge in Earth System Governance

Chair Julia Guivant

Panel 11 Bilateral and Multilateral Financial Institutions and Climate Governance

Chair Norichika Kanie

Panel 12 Governing Biotechnology Chair Diana Liverman Panel 13 Policy Integration and Fragmentation (2) Chair Susana Camargo

Vieira Panel 14 Architecture for Vertical Interplay Chair Tim Rayner Panel 15 Market-Based Approaches to Governing

Climate Change Chair Mark Elder

Theme 2: Agency in Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: MICHELE BETSILL AND PHILIPP PATTBERG

Panel 1 Agency in the Energy Sector Chair Andreas Klinke Panel 2 Agency in Water Governance (1) Chair Louis Lebel Panel 3 Agency in Water Governance (2) Chair Joyeeta Gupta Panel 4 Agency in the Private Sector Chair Daniel

Compagnon Panel 5 NGO Influence in Earth System Governance Chair Arild Underdal Panel 6 Managing Earth System Governance Chair Matthew

Hoffmann Panel 7 Local Agency in Earth System Governance Chair Antony Cheng Panel 8 The Political Economy of Earth System

Governance Chair Pieter Glasbergen

Panel 9 Private Agents of Earth System Governance Chair Ingrid Visseren Panel 10 Agency in Global Climate Governance Chair Philipp Pattberg Panel 11 Urban Planners as Agents of Earth System

Governance Chair Michele Betsill

Panel 12 Actors in Earth System Governance Chair Paul Wapner Panel 13 Networks in Earth System Governance Chair Michele Betsill

Theme 3: Adaptiveness of Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: CARL FOLKE, LOUIS LEBEL, VICTOR GALAZ AND DAVE HUITEMA

Panel 1 Urban Governance and Vulnerability Chair Louis Lebel


24

Panel 2 Social Learning and Collaboration Chair Frances Westley Panel 3 Managing Climate Risks and Disasters Chair Gina Ziervogel Panel 4 Water Governance Chair Lena Partzsch Panel 5 International Institutions and Politics Chair Måns Nilsson Panel 6 Vulnerability, Coping and Displacement Chair Ingrid Boas Panel 7 Regional Adaptation to Climate Change Chair Victor Galaz Panel 8 Local Institutions and Resource Management Chair Derek Armitage Panel 9 Vulnerability and Adaptation in Agriculture and

Flood Systems Chair Eric Massey

Panel 10 Water Quantity Management Chair Saskia Werners Panel 11 Managing Ecosystems for Biodiversity and Use Chair Per Olsson

Theme 4: Accountability and Legitimacy in Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: JOHN DRYZEK AND AARTI GUPTA

Panel 1 Democracy, Law and Earth System Governance

Chair John Dryzek

Panel 2 Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (1): Innovative Mechanisms

Chair Steven Bernstein

Panel 3 Integrated Climate Governance: Accountability and Effectiveness

Chair Aarti Gupta

Panel 4 Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (2): Multi-Level Stakeholder Processes

Chair Karin Bäckstrand

Panel 5 Transparency and Earth System Governance: Promise and Perils

Chair Ronald B. Mitchell

Panel 6 Legitimacy and Earth System Governance (3): The Local and the Global

Chair Ayşem Mert

Theme 5: Allocation and Access in Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: FRANK BIERMANN AND LENNART OLSSON

Panel 1 Allocation and Accountability in Water Governance

Chair Anne Jerneck

Panel 2 Resource Allocation Chair Lennart Olsson Panel 3 Environmental Justice Chair Richard Klein Panel 4 Global Climate Governance beyond 2012 Chair Frank Biermann Panel 5 Distributive Effects of Global Policies Chair Susana Camargo

Vieira

Theme 6: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Earth System Governance

STREAM CONVENERS: JAMES MEADOWCROFT AND ARTHUR PETERSEN

Panel 1 Reframing Environmental Governance Chair James Meadowcroft

Panel 2 Governance, Instruments and Learning Chair Bernd Siebenhüner

Panel 3 Adaptation and Resilience Chair Arthur Petersen Panel 4 Earth System Governance: Critical Reflections Chair James

Meadowcroft Panel 5 Modelling and Measurement Chair Arthur Petersen


25

Tuesday, 1 December

Location: Main Entrance, Conference Venue 10.00 – 22.00 Registration, 2009 Amsterdam Conference

Location: Restaurant, Conference Venue 18.00 – 19.30 Welcome Reception, 2009 Amsterdam Conference

Hosted by the Earth System Governance Project

Refreshments are served

Location: Restaurant, Conference Venue 20.15 – … Informal Conference Dinner

(not included in registration fee)


26

Wednesday, 2 December

9.00 –10.30 OPENING PLENARY Location: Room 1, Zuiderzeezaal

Welcome

FRANK BIERMANN Earth System Governance Project, SENSE Research School, and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

CHAIR: ROBERTO PEREIRA GUIMARÃES International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, and the Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

Earth System Governance: Outline of a Global Research Programme

FRANK BIERMANN Earth System Governance Project, SENSE Research School, and VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Earth System Governance: A Perspective from Earth System Science

RIK LEEMANS Earth System Science Partnership, SENSE Research School, and Wageningen University, The Netherlands

10.30 –10.45 Coffee/Tea Break


27

SEMI-PLENARY I 10.45 – 12.15 Architecture of Earth System Governance

Co-hosts: Tokyo Institute of Technology and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Room: 1, Zuiderzeezaal

CHAIR: NORICHIKA KANIE Scientific Steering Committee, Earth System Governance Project; and Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Domestic Policymaking Processes and Architecture for Earth System

Governance: From Theory to Practical Implications

MARK ELDER The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

Architectural Design for Improved Earth System Governance

PETER HAAS Associate Faculty, Earth System Governance Project; and University of Massachusetts at Amherst, United States of America

Earth System Governance: What Have We Learned About the Effectiveness

of International Environmental Regimes, and How Can We Learn More?

ARILD UNDERDAL Associate Faculty, Earth System Governance Project; and University of Oslo, Norway


28

SEMI-PLENARY II 10.45 – 12.15 Adaptiveness and Innovation in Earth System

Governance

Co-hosts: Stockholm Resilience Centre and the EU Marie Curie Programme Room: 2, Purmerzaal

CHAIR: VICTOR GALAZ STOCKHOLM RESILIENCE CENTRE, SWEDEN

Capturing Essential Feedbacks for Social-Ecological Sustainability

CARL FOLKE Associate Faculty, Earth System Governance Project; and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden

Health Innovation Mismatches: Learning Lessons for Sustainability

REBECCA HANLIN The Open University, United Kingdom

Inclusive, Deliberative and Adaptive: Changing How Water is Managed at

Multiple Scales

LOUIS LEBEL Scientific Steering Committee, Earth System Governance Project; and Chiang Mai University, Thailand

12.15 –13.30 Lunch Break (included in registration fee)


29

Parallel Panel Sessions I

13.45 – 15.15 Architecture, Panel 1: Architecture and Agency beyond the State

Room: 2, Purmerzaal

CHAIR: HEIKE SCHROEDER University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Carbon Governance in a Consumer Age: An Investigation of Milk Production

and Consumption in the UK

REBECCA WHITE Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, United Kingdom

This paper focuses on emerging, and still evolving, UK based attempts to measure and manage supply chain carbon emissions (also referred to here as greenhouse gases or GHGs), and criti-cally assesses whether this scale of governing has a role to play in reducing the climate impact of food systems. Producing and consuming food are carbon intensive activities. Reducing emis-sions from the food system is not easily done through existing regulatory mechanisms that target large, facility based emissions and big organizations. The networked, diffuse and complex socio-biological sources of agricultural emissions require innovative forms of governance. Whilst the developing supply chain based processes promise much in terms of enrolling previously margin-alized actors into carbon governance frameworks, their development by private and quasi-private actors also begs questions as to their efficacy in light of constraining political economic supply chain relations. Milk is used as a case study commodity through which to investigate these issues, allowing for a contextual and grounded understanding of the opportunities and limitations of governance at this scale. Interdisciplinary methodologies, including life cycle assessment, scenario thinking and semi-structured interviews are used to make three core arguments. Firstly: the voluntary application of these approaches across milk and other food products is likely to be highly uneven. The material, biological and cultural nature of the product, as well as the related political-economic context, act to shape incentive structures for managing carbon along the supply chain. In some instances, this creates fertile ground for seeking to manage emissions from a supply chain, and in others there is little cause for action. Secondly: whilst these approaches might promise to deliver short term (and reasonably substantial) emissions reductions from milk production, there is a real danger that they will further embed what is arguably an unsustainable product—as produced and consumed in Western diets. Finally: governing carbon at the supply chain level still offers a very useful means through which to engage small-scale economic actors. However, a more reflexive, systemic approach is needed that couples initiatives at the supply chain scale with broader frameworks that seek to learn how a ‘sustainable' food system might function. Means by which to develop this multi-scalar framework are suggested.

‘Depth Drilling’ in Global Climate Governance: A Discursive Approach to

Coherence in Governance Beyond the Nation State

CHRIS METHMANN University of Hamburg, Germany

Throughout its almost two decades of existence, the global governance of climate change has unfolded as a dense network of various and intersecting spheres of authority. Public norm setting and private regulation, political action on sub- and supranational levels, governance through hierarchies, partnerships and markets increasingly criss-cross and influence each other. Global governance research seeks to analyze these new types of governance arrangements beyond the state separately as well as the mechanisms through which coherence is achieved between these various sites of governance. While the former has become a main subject of research activities, the study of coherence is underdeveloped in the governance literature. It is either modelled as implemented top-down through so called secondary norms or as driven by states (un-)consciously striving for the convergence of international provisions. These attempts are ob-


30

viously contrary to the general aim of governance research to conceptualize governance be-yond hierarchical enforcement or state behaviour. Drawing on Michel Foucault‘s concept of governmentality and Ernesto Laclau‘s discourse theory this paper aims to develop an analytic framework to explore the soft and underlying structures that provide for coherence in global governance. Governmentality conceives of governing as tied to a specific rationality that struc-tures it across different spheres of governance. Discourse theory provides tools to understand how these rationalities emerge, spread and converge around certain nodal points, how conflicts between them are discursively managed and how they finally become hegemonic. Such a discursive approach provides a different way to theoretically grasp coherence and basic struc-tures in global governance. The added-value of such an approach will be demonstrated in an exploratory study of the overlapping between the climate regime and other policy areas that have become relevant for the mitigation of climate change. On the one hand, the agenda of international climate negotiations has broadened and now includes issues as technology trans-fer, energy policy in developing countries or forest protection that are also dealt with in other international fora as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank or the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity. On the other hand, these institutions themselves have increasingly spurred discus-sions about their contribution for climate protection. It is likely that both processes influence each other. Because this mostly takes place in the absence of hierarchies and formal state negotia-tions, this ‘climate mainstreaming’ serves as a good illustration for the utility of the presented discursive framework.

Non-State Actors: Accelerator or Brake of Policy Diffusion?

KATJA BIEDENKOPF Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

This paper analyses and compares the roles that non-state actors play in the diffusion of EU envi-ronmental policy to the United States of America. Non-state actors communicate information about foreign policy experiences around the globe and they use foreign policy examples in their advocacy efforts in domestic policy-making procedures. These efforts can accelerate diffusion processes equally as they can slow them down. Different non-state actors pursue different strategies and play different roles in policy diffusion processes. This paper analyses the roles that NGOs, industry and academic actors have played in the diffusion of EU substance restrictions in electronics and chemicals policy to the United States. It describes their activities and the ways in which they engage in fostering or impeding the influence of EU policy on developments in the US. Policy diffusion takes place in the absence of formal international agreements and contrib-utes to earth system governance by transmitting ambitious environmental policy from a pioneer to a number of other jurisdictions globally. In recent years, the EU took on a pioneer role by intro-ducing ambitious environmental policy including the restriction of hazardous substances in elec-tronic products and on chemicals. Both policies had an influence on the United States and many other countries—arguably raising environmental protection levels abroad. Non-state actors have been involved in these diffusion processes and played a significant role. This paper contrasts the different roles and strategies that NGOs, industry and academic actors assume in policy diffusion. The paper first describes policy diffusion processes and the relevance of non-state actors. Then it addresses the case studies of two EU laws, namely the restriction of hazardous substances in electronic products and the restriction, evaluation and assessment of chemicals. It describes the influence that these EU laws had on policy in the US and identifies the roles that non-state actors played in the different diffusion processes. The paper concludes by discussing the relevance of the various actor groups at different stages of policy diffusion processes.

Conceptualizing Global Environmental Consultancy Firms as Actors in Global

Environmental Governance

SOFIE BOUTELIGIER Catholic University of Leuven (KULeuven), Belgium

Today, private companies are conceptualized as political actors in global environmental gov-ernance (Clapp, Levy and Newell, Pattberg). They are both recipients of, as well as contributors to the development of environmental norms, standards and legislation. Furthermore, they can influence environmental policymaking through lobbying and private environmental governance. However, not much research has been conducted on a (sub-)sector that probably has a signifi-cant impact on environmental governance: the environmental service industry (e.g. Miles, Schulze). This sector enables public and private actors to deliver environmental solutions by pro-viding the necessary technology and expertise. One branch within the sector is of particular relevance when it comes to the transfer of environmental information and knowledge: environ-mental consulting. This paper is an onset to investigate the role of environmental consultancy firms in global environmental governance. It argues that in the Information Age, a knowledge-


31

intensive branch like environmental consultancy gains in strategic importance. Particular atten-tion is paid to those environmental consultancy firms that are active worldwide, as their transna-tional activities enable them to have an impact that is broad in geographic scope and affects various actors. Globalization theory and literature on networks, flows and global cities (Castells, Mol, Sassen) frame the topic theoretically. Point of departure is the idea that globalization proc-esses enable other actors than the nation-state to take up a role in global environmental gov-ernance and in the provision of environmental information and knowledge. Furthermore, actors increasingly organize their global activities from metropolitan areas, which makes these places sites that concentrate vital knowledge, infrastructure and services. The paper shows how global environmental consultancy firms can be conceptualized as actors in global environmental gov-ernance. It sketches the industry, discusses to what extent global environmental consultancy firms really are ‘global’ and focuses on the information and knowledge transfer (flows) that they generate.

13.45 – 15.15 Agency, Panel 1: Agency in the Energy Sector


CHAIR: ANDREAS KLINKE Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), Switzerland

Governance of Sustainable Innovations: Multilevel and Multimodal Patterns in

Transport Technology Systems

MÅNS NILSSON¹,² 1Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden, 2Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

This paper examines the development of governance arrangements aimed at fostering more sustainable technological innovation across levels. It looks at governance in two technological innovation systems (TIS) in the transport sector; biofuels and hybrid-electric vehicles, and makes an overall assessment of the range of arrangements that have emerged in the last two decades and makes a preliminary classification of their characteristics. It examines the relevance of dif-ferent actors, scales, and modes of governance, taking a particular interest in the role separa-tion between private and public actors; as well as between international and national levels of governance, and distinguishes different modes of governance for sustainable innovations. The assessment reveals that much governance influences both TISs, but that overall, publicly led governance is much more prevalent in biofuels than in HEV, and that biofuels is subject to in particular much more international governance. These patterns can be understood in light of both the different institutional and actor characteristics of the TISs, and their positions in relation to overarching regimes and adjacent organizational fields. Finally, the paper argues that there is an unfulfilled promise and need for more international governance for innovation systems around sustainable transport technologies.

Repertory Grid Technique for the Bottom-up Analysis of Actor Networks and

Perspectives: The Case of the Dutch Energy Transition

EEFJE CUPPEN, MATTHIJS HISSCHEMÖLLER AND RIES BODE Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The notion that complex societal problems, such as the transition to a sustainable energy system, require a participatory approach has become widely accepted among scholars working in the field of science, technology and innovation. This notion has been incorporated in Dutch policy through the institutionalization of transition programmes, platforms and projects. This institutionali-zation should stimulate competition and new collaborations by facilitating arenas of societal actors and the formation of new networks. From a theoretical viewpoint, it has been emphasized that these actors should cover a broad range of perspectives and expertise, and that arenas should be crosscutting existing networks and different societal levels. This paper reports with on an evaluation study that addresses the question as to whether current Dutch practice in the energy transition lives up to these theoretical requirements. The aim of this paper is to show how actor networks can be analyzed in such a way that the role, influence and relevance of actors as perceived by other actors is taken into account. As such, this paper presents a stakeholders' perspective on actor networks within the Dutch energy transition. The method used for this analy-


32

sis is the Repertory grid technique. Repertory grid technique has been developed originally in clinical psychology to analyze an individual's ‘construct system', i.e. the way an individual makes sense of a particular issue. It involves interviews in which respondents repeatedly compare triads of elements and are asked to specify some important way in which two of the elements are similar and different from the third. In this specific case, stakeholders are repeatedly asked to compare sets of three transition actors from a sample of about twelve actors operating within the energy transition field: ‘Thinking about the energy transition, in what way are two of these actors similar but different from the third?’ The answer on this question is a construct, for example ‘innovative versus not innovative’. At the end of the interview, the respondent is asked which three constructs he or she finds most important in relation to the energy transition. Subsequently, these three constructs are presented as bipolar scales (e.g. from 1 to 5) and the respondent is asked to rate all actors from the sample on those scales. The ranking of actors on these subjec-tive scales, i.e. the constructs, enables a statistical analysis. The analysis results in an insight into the unique constructs that shape stakeholder visions with regard to the energy transition, as well as the divergence of these visions. Furthermore, it gives insight into the composition of the actor network, in a bottom-up fashion, i.e. as perceived by stakeholders within the network. Based on these empirical results we reflect on current practice in the Dutch energy transition.

Explaining Variation in the Performance of Energy Partnerships

KACPER SZULECKI¹, FRANK BIERMANN² AND PHILIPP PATTBERG² 1Constance University, Germany, 2Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Within the context of agency beyond the state, one paramount question is that of the wider effectiveness of governance instruments beyond international collaboration or top-down policy making. Why are some multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development successfully addressing pressing environmental challenges while others have hardly any traceable results? This paper theorizes the variation in performance between the most effective and the least ef-fective CSD partnerships in the sustainable energy sector. Two competing hypotheses are dis-cussed. First, rooted in institutionalism, we assume the variation in performance to be related to organizational structure. A higher level of institutionalization and an emphasis on process-ori-ented decision-making should enhance effectiveness. The competing hypothesis emphasizes the power of actors involved, expecting partnerships that involve key business players and powerful OECD states to perform better. A qualitative analysis of a sample of multi-stakeholder partner-ships is conducted, supported by background quantitative research based on broad database of multi-stakeholder partnerships in sustainability governance. We argue that the level of institu-tionalization is the most important factor influencing effectiveness, while powerful partners and internal organization can additionally enhance a partnership's influence under certain condi-tions.

13.45 – 15.15 Adaptiveness, Panel 1: Urban Governance and Vulnerability


CHAIR: LOUIS LEBEL Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Resilient Cities? Historical Insights on the Adaptiveness of Metropolitan Scale

Spatial Planning and Governance to Global Scale Ecosystem Governance

Initiatives: A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia

CATHY WILKINSON Stockholm University and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden

It is well established that over half the world-population is urban, that by 2030 nearly 5 billion people will live in cities and that whilst cities are sources of immense innovation, they are also the source of many complex problems that threaten the resilience of global ecological and ulti-mately urban systems. If earth system governance approaches are to succeed, cross-scale co-ordination that enables rapid (as well as slow) adaptive responses at the metropolitan scale will be critical. This research explores the cross-scale interactions between earth system governance


33

and urban governance through an historical analysis of metropolitan scale spatial plans (metro-politan strategies). The insights for this paper are drawn from the early findings of empirical case study research in Melbourne, Australia. This research examines how local and global scale eco-system governance initiatives have been translated through metropolitan scale spatial planning and governance initiatives over time and asks: How have ecosystem services been governed over time through metropolitan spatial planning and governance? How and with what time delay have global scale governance initiatives to protect ecosystem services been imple-mented through metropolitan scale spatial planning and governance? How can global/metropolitan scale coordination of the governance of ecosystem services be improved through spatial planning and governance? Spatial planning processes have experienced a revival over the past decade as cities face increasing pressure from globalization, urbanization and ecological challenges. Most resulting metropolitan strategies aspire to a transformative change agenda towards more sustainable urban outcomes and an increasing awareness of the global nature of critical drivers of change. However many urban governance approaches re-main stuck in linear conceptualizations of the dynamics of structural change in urban and eco-logical systems. City planning needs more adaptive governance approaches that are grounded in deeper ecological understandings if cross-scale coordination between earth system govern-ance and metropolitan scale urban governance is to be achieved. This presents many chal-lenges for established modes of spatial planning and governance.

Reducing the Vulnerability to Global Climate Change of People Facing

Homelessness in Urban Centres

JOHANNA WANDEL1, MANUEL RIEMER2, WENDY DE-GOMEZ1 AND KATE KLEIN2 ¹University of Waterloo, Canada, ²Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

In the human dimensions of climate change field, vulnerability assessments have effectively identified the role of climate-related exposures in the context of other, non-climatic, stresses for diverse case studies in developing and industrialized world contexts. Frequently, the conclusions from these assessments highlight the necessity of understanding that human adaptation deci-sions to climate change are rarely made in isolation of other social, economic and political con-cerns. In developing country contexts, the need to build climate change adaptation and vul-nerability reduction into broader social and economic policies is commonly referred to as ‘main-streaming’. To date, however, there are few concrete successful examples of mainstreaming climate concerns into community-level policy and programme development and delivery in highly urbanized, industrialized societies from the human dimensions of climate change scholar-ship. There is a need to move from vulnerability to climate change to action to reduce vulner-ability. Community psychologists have a long tradition of ‘participatory action research’, that is, research conducted in partnership with community members with the explicit goal of leading to change. This type of research has been successful in problems focused on public health, but has not been extensively used to address vulnerability to climate change. This paper will describe efforts by the authors to bring together these two research approaches and associated meth-odologies to assess and, ultimately, reduce the vulnerability of a particular population, the urban homeless of Waterloo Region, in Ontario Canada, to climate change. This research represents a case study for blending the two schools of thought in order to bridge the assessment-action gap in climate change vulnerability scholarship. The study has three objectives: 1.To assess the current vulnerability of the target group to climate change; 2. To identify future changes in the target group's vulnerability given what we know from climate and air quality science; and 3. To reduce the vulnerability of the target group. The study is based on an established methodology for community-level vulnerability assessment to climate change and combines this methodology with a participatory action research approach commonly used in community-based research. This paper presents the results for objective 1 and 2 which are based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with people facing homelessness in urban centres in the Waterloo Region (objective 1) and a careful review of local climate data (objective 2) which will be linked to events described in the stories gathered for objective 1. Besides presenting these results, the authors will also discuss the process of combining the two approaches (vulnerability and partici-patory action research), the challenges in bringing the different methodologies together, and the process of developing partnership with government agencies and community partners. Implications for governance in regard to the vulnerability of specific populations in urban centres of developed countries will be highlighted.


34

Urbanization and Human Rights in the 21st Century

ANJA MIHR Institute for Human Rights, The Netherlands

In 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights also marked a turning point for urban development. For the first time in history, more then half of the worlds' population live in larger cities. Approx. 3,3 billion people have moved to the urban areas over the past dec-ades, over 80% of them living in slums and under inhuman conditions. Mass migration became a global phenomenon, and its root causes are found in the lack of access to resources, land and labour, in climate change, uncontrollable non-international wars and armed conflicts. UN or-ganizations such as the UNDP and UNFPA are estimating by 2030 that the large majority of world population, 80%, approx. over 5 billion people, will live in urban areas. Those areas will then turn in to mega cities not seen before. Billions of people will be living under the poverty line, more then half of them are children under the age of 18. Gender and social inequality; religious-intolerance (Judaism-Buddhism-Hinduism-Christianity-Islam), international terrorism/violence and inner state armed conflicts and the problem of racism will occur. And the worlds growing population in urban areas of which large parts are either migrants, belong ethnic minorities, are refugees, are less educated and skilled, trafficked and are treated as slaves; will ask for new problem solving mechanism and forms of governance and participation. Traditionally they have been excluded from political and social decision-making processes, their personal freedom have been limited, their physically integrity has been violated and has been subject to discrimination, torture or ill-treatment. Their human rights and access to social and economic resources and property has been denied, family and reproductive rights have been neglected or the human right to educa-tion and choose ones professions ignored. Deprivation, insecurity, exclusion or voiceless people are the result. 2/3 of these cities and the population will be in Asia and the Middle East. This re-gion has little or no democratic development and no regional human rights system. This will cre-ate a demand for NGOs and International Organizations to intervene. This development has and will have further implications for international human rights standards and norms. This paper will thus deal with the challenges the international human rights system with its standards will be facing in the context of urbanization. I will concentrate on the implementation, possibilities and weaknesses of the global and regional Human Rights System, its standards, treaties, conventions and declarations when facing urbanization and its root causes. I will also elaborate on interna-tional, domestic and local mechanism such as International Organizations, local governments and NGOs that deal with these issues and their attempt to solve the upcoming problems in order to comply with human rights standards and avoid conflicts and turmoil.

13.45 – 15.15 Accountability and Legitimacy, Panel 1: Democracy, Law and Earth System Governance

Room: 5, Rooszaal

CHAIR: JOHN DRYZEK Australian National University, Australia

Deliberative Jurisprudence and Transnational Common Law as a Strategy for


WALTER BABER¹ AND ROBERT BARTLETT² 1California State University Long Beach, United States of America, 2University of Vermont, United States of America

A few authors, notably Dryzek, have noted in passing that deliberative democratic theory ought to be highly applicable to international politics where consensus is the default decision rule, but few have explored this potential systematically, nor have many developed specific proposals for global processes and institutions to harness the potential for addressing the existing democratic deficiency in international environmental law and policies. This paper explores the necessary characteristics of a meaningful global jurisprudence that could underpin truly effective interna-tional environmental law, a jurisprudence with theoretical foundations in realism, pragmatism, and deliberative democracy Building on this analysis, we suggest a conceptual framework for international politics and law that offers the prospect of workable, democratic, and environ-mental-friendly rule-governed behaviour within a system of global politics that is likely to remain


35

(and perhaps ought to remain) anarchic in important respects. Specifically, the development of a global environmental jurisprudence must be based on democratically generated norms. We analyze establishment of a concrete process for identifying and generating global environ-mental norms and for translating those norms into international law—law that, unlike current international law, will be universally recognized as both fact and norm (Habermas) because of its inherent democratic legitimacy. This paper will propose a new and democratic method for cre-ating, interpreting, and implementing international environmental norms that would in the initial stages bypass states. We demonstrate that it is possible to develop a transnational environmental consensus through a system of juristic democracy that could generate and legitimate interna-tional environmental norms. A kind of ‘transnational common law' for the environment would thus be developed on a foundation of norms and principles derived from the consideration by innumerable policy juries of carefully cast hypothetical cases. A strength of this paper lies in its linking of elements not typically associated: first, the legitimacy-imparting value of a practically realizable, catholic, deliberative democracy, and second, the possibility of legislating through common law jurisprudence, deliberate adjudication, and the development of transnational common law. As such, it proposes a rule-making system constituting a ‘strategy for earth system management’ that could be fully complementary to many other possible strategies. It mainly addresses core analytical problem number four in the conference call for papers—accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance. The focus of this paper is on a pro-spective institutional design that would produce accountability and legitimacy for ‘earth system governance in a way that guarantees balances of interests and perspectives.’ It also addresses problem number six—theoretical and methodological foundations of earth system governance and new ways of thinking about governance and earth system transformation.

Diversity and Pluralism in Earth System Governance: What Role for Global

Administrative Law?

FRANCESCA SPAGNUOLO University of Pisa, Italy

The paper aims to briefly illustrate some major findings of an ongoing research project on the role of global administrative law in earth system governance. The primary focus is to explore whether administrative-law type mechanisms, such as the right to be heard, the duty to provide a rea-soned decision and disclose relevant information, could enhance the accountability and de-mocratic legitimacy of earth system governance. The democracy-enhancing potential of such administrative-law type mechanisms, which in the national context have proved to be beneficial in strengthening citizens' participation and the acceptance of decisions, in the global arena can be limited, in fact, by a number of factors. One of these factors is ‘legal imperialism’, understood as the transplant on the global plane of rules and institutions that impose the hegemony of Western values. As a matter of fact, administrative- law type mechanisms and administrative law principles (such as transparency, legality, due process, and so forth), being a construct of a certain type of Western, liberal model of State (and its capitalist model of development), could be perceived, in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres of the earth, as an instrument to repro-duce the dominant position of rich ‘developed’ countries. The analysis suggests that in order to realize their democracy-enhancing potential, administrative-law type mechanisms should draw on universal principles and cross-cultural values and be supported by financial and technical instruments enabling ‘developing’ countries and marginalized groups to engage in dialogue with the most powerful actors. By drawing on the current debate concerning the democratic quality of global governance and focusing on specific case studies related to the flagship activities of the Earth System Governance Project, the paper investigates whether, and under which condi-tions, the adoption of administrative-law type mechanisms could lead to a more democratic earth system governance. From a methodological point of view, the research combines the traditional method of legal research with some concepts borrowed from social sciences. The ambition is to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of interactions between theo-retical developments and practical implications of a pluralistic approach to democratic earth system governance.

Establishing Liability for Environmental and Human Damages and Injuries

Caused by Ozone Depleting and High Global Warming Potential Substances:

Corporate Liability, State Responsibility, Both or None?

LISA ELGES Free University Berlin and Transparency International, Germany

For almost 65 years from 1930 to 1995, multinational corporations in North America, Europe and Japan produced and emitted into the atmosphere millions of tons halocarbons for industrial applications such as refrigerants, aerosols, foams and fire extinguishers. These halocarbons or


36

were discovered in 1974 to deplete severely the Ozone Layer in the earth’s outer stratosphere and thereby increasing Ultra-Violet (UV-A and UV-B) radiation in the lower atmosphere . The UV radiation in turn has harmful impacts on humans and the environment including increases in DNA mutations, skin cancer, weakened immunity to disease, blindness/cataracts and damage to crops and plants. The ozone hole in 2006 was among the largest ever recorded—covering al-most 30 million km2 .Ozone-layer recovery is affected by climate change—the latter is predicted to cause a 20-year delay ozone recovery setback to 2060-2075. Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) have a very high global warming potential up to approximately 15,000 times that of car-bon dioxide, contributing significantly to global warming. Because ODS also have long atmos-pheric lives—some 50-300 years longer than CO2—the past and continued release may continue to threaten global climate systems well into the 22nd century. Meanwhile, ground –level UV-B radiation has increased: A sustained 10 -15% depletion of stratospheric ozone over several dec-ades could result in an estimated 15–20% increase in the incidence of skin cancer. Science clearly evidences that human and environmental health are and will continue to suffer damage. Little doubt exists that such damage was and is brought on by multinational chemical corpora-tions in the US, Europe and Japan (and now in China and India). Given this distant but relatively linear causal relationship, it is fair to question the reparatory obligations of both the multinationals and the States where they are based: Is it legally possible for a person or persons who have suf-fered or are likely to suffer from harms to human and/or environmental health caused by over-exposure or UV-A and UV-B radiation caused by depletion of the ozone layer to be compen-sated for those damages or injuries incurred? This paper grapples with this question by examining the development of jurisprudence at domestic and international levels to confer liability and responsibility to state and non-state actors for their acts or omissions to prevent ozone layer de-pletion and related climate change impacts. Conversely, how the same actors have acted or failed to act regarding corollary ‘obligations’ to protect human and environmental health is investigated. Accordingly, this paper presents and analyses how judicial institutions have ad-dressed reparation claims for damages resulting from high global warming potential ODS. Rele-vant domestic court judgments, decisions and opinions in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia are reviewed.

A River Runs Through It: Democracy, International Interlinkages and

Cooperation over Shared Resources

ANNA KALBHENN Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland

The aim of this paper is to show the impact of democratic structures countries' interlinkages on transboundary environmental commitments. Empirically, I focus on governments' performance regarding transboundary river management using a new dataset on transboundary water events covering all international basins for a period of ten years. Based on these event data, I analyze whether democratic pairs of countries tend to differ with respect to their mutual envi-ronmental commitments (on both cross-border and border-demarcating rivers) compared to non-democratic or mixed dyads. In particular, I juxtapose both the severity and the salience of possible environmental problems and water scarcity with cooperative (and conflictive) events between riparian countries' governments with respect to joint river management. Preliminary results support the hypothesis that democratic dyads cooperate more on environ-mental issues than non-democratic pairs of countries in case of water quality and quantity, but reveal a reversed effect with respect to joint management. Finally, I can show that—across issue areas—autocracies collaborate less the higher the expected costs of abatement. These findings imply that democracies might outperform autocracies in solving transboundary problems and thus lend support to classical Kantian peace arguments.


37

13.45 – 15.15 Allocation and Access, Panel 1: Allocation and Accountability in Water Governance


CHAIR: ANNE JERNECK Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund University, Sweden

Neo-Liberal Transitions in Hydropower and Irrigation Water Management in

Turkey: Main Actors and Opposition Groups

AYSEGUL KIBAROGLU, ARGUN BASKAN AND SEZIN ALP Middle East Technical University, Turkey

The main goals of state water allocation and planning policy in Turkey comprise independence from imported energy sources, increased agricultural production, satisfaction of increasing indus-trial, urban, and rural demands for water, and the resolution of regional economic and social imbalances in order to raise the living standards of the population. From the 1950s, the inclusion of such social aims led to water resources development being carried out by government agen-cies through public investment. Since the early 1980s, neoliberal transformation of the Turkish political economy has resulted in significant changes in water policy and management. The privatization of irrigation water management in the early 1990s with the guidance and partial financing of the World Bank serves to illustrate. Within the framework of an accelerated pro-gramme of management transfer, irrigation associations were established to operate and main-tain almost all the irrigation systems in the country. Liberalization of the hydroelectricity sector has been underway since the 1980s, reinforced by important legislation adopted in 2005. This paper focuses on the water policy and management transitions in the hydroelectricity and irrigation sectors and outlines the role of the key actors fostering change and that of the opposing coali-tion. The neoliberal economic transitions in Turkey have typically been initiated by high-level politicians. Additional key advocates of the policy change included the World Bank and other international actors such as the OECD and European Union, and private national and interna-tional corporations. We describe and examine below the strategies used by these actors in im-plementing the neoliberal irrigation and hydroelectricity policies. This paper also takes up the criticisms of and actions against the water policy transition by the coalition of opponents. We examine the position and activities of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB in Turkish), which has developed the major critiques of the new water policies. The Chambers have all filed lawsuits, produced numerous declarations, and organized public meet-ings, briefings and national water congresses with the main objective of blocking the shift to neoliberal water policy and management. The Chambers in doing so have allied with parliamen-tarians from the opposition parties and academics from Turkish universities. In this paper, we explore the key strategies of the opposing coalition, setting out their discourses and practices aimed at preventing or limiting the policy transition in the hydropower and irrigation sub-sectors.

Sovereignty, Justice and Responsibility in the Allocation of Middle Eastern

Transboundary Water Flows: Sharing the Benefits?

MINE ISLAR AND VASNA RAMASAR Lund University, Sweden

The highly contested and complex issue of transboundary water governance calls for rethinking fairness and equity in the allocation of water between sovereign nation-states. This paper aims to provoke ideas about the problem of allocation and access that is stated in the Earth System Governance Project. It starts out arguing that the problem of allocation in the Middle East by both upstream and downstream countries is framed through the discourses of national sover-eignty and historical conflicts. In a world where national borders define who gets what, each nation state prioritizes its own citizens and development goals over those of other nations. In this context, it elaborates the question of why regional cooperation based on a just allocation of water in the Middle East has failed and further suggests that the notion of a ´water security di-lemma´ can highlight certain important reasons for this. When one nation- state approach the issue of water as a security and sovereignty issue, then other nation states tend to do the same. In this light, historical conflicts over transboundary rivers between Turkey, Syria and Iraq and these countries` water projects and their unfair implications provide an overview in the discussions related to justice and fairness. Related case studies are used as the main data material. By fram-ing the allocation in terms of allocating benefits, responsibilities and involuntary risks between countries, this paper explores the future possibilities of cooperation in the light of the ideas of


38

´sharing´ benefits of common water projects and it investigates whether or not cooperation is more beneficial and fair rather than non- cooperation. In this respect, by giving

2009 Amsterdam Conference - Earth System Governance Project · 2013. 9. 4. · 2009 Amsterdam...

Documents

Transcript of 2009 Amsterdam Conference - Earth System Governance Project · 2013. 9. 4. · 2009 Amsterdam...