7177

UPDATEIHDP

N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G E

www.ihdp.org ISSN 1727-155X 1.2007

10 Years Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change – A Synthesis

The IDGEC Synthesis ConferenceInstitutions for Sustainable Development in the Faceof Global Environmental ChangeBY HEIKE SCHROEDER

The IDGEC Synthesis Conference was the culminationof almost ten years of research on the role of institutions inhuman/environment interactions. It was held from 6-9December 2006 in the beautiful and serene setting of theGrand Hyatt Hotel in Bali, Indonesia. The conferenceobjectives went beyond those of a typical scientific confer-ence. The Synthesis Conference set out to not only presentand disseminate research findings, but also to synthesizesuch findings with an eye to exploring the policy relevanceand identifying gaps in this knowledge.The conferencewascarefully crafted to attain these goals. Concerted effortswere made to attract a diverse group of participants who

would bridge the science-practice, senior-junior, andNorth-South divides. Attendance stood at approximately150 participants from 35 countries.The Synthesis Conference was the culmination not only

of the ten years of research but also of a two-year synthesisprocess. To help with the goals of disseminating findings,applying science to policy and policy to science, and map-ping a future research agenda, IDGEC built a number ofpartnerships. In this context, IDGEC co-convened threeworkshops on December 5th, one day prior to the start ofthe Synthesis Conference. The first, co-organized with theGlobal Carbon Project (GCP), applied IDGEC’s analytical

Bali impression taken during the IDGEC Synthesis Conference, December 2006

Photoby:YiliZhang

2 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsT H E I D G E C S Y N T H E S I S C O N F E R E N C E

EDITORIAL

Research Foci, Themes and Flagship Activities of IDGEC

framework to the issue of urban and regional carbonman-agement and developed a collaborative research outline.The second workshop, co-organized with the IHDP/IGBPproject on Land-Ocean Interaction in the Coastal Zone(LOICZ), alsomade use of the IDGEC framework to betterunderstand the intricacies of coastal governance. The thirdworkshop, convened by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin(ENB) team, shared and discussed the informal knowledgeand intelligence gathered by ENB reporters on a number ofMEA processes.The IDGEC Synthesis Conference kicked off in the

afternoon of December 6th with a traditional Balineseopening ceremony featuring Balinese gamelanmusic and aPendet dance, which presented an offering in the form of aritual dance. Local host Agus Sari chaired theOpening Ple-nary. IHDP representative Falk Schmidt welcomed partici-pants on behalf of IDGEC’s “proud” parent organization.IDGEC’s founding chair, Oran Young, gave a comprehen-sive overview of the IDGEC project and charged partici-pants with achieving the objectives of the conference. Ir. INyoman Sucipta, Assistant to the Rector of Bali’s UdayanaUniversity offered warmwords of welcome.Amanda KatiliNiode, Special Staff of Environmental Impact Manage-ment and Technical Assistant to the EnvironmentMinisterof Indonesia, pointed to the importance of IDGEC’sresearch to her ongoing work in the EnvironmentMinistryof Indonesia. The conference was declared open by thesounding of a traditional Balinese gong.December 7th was devoted to synthesizing what we

know now about the roles institutions play in causing andsolving environmental problems that we did not know atthe outset of the project.Keynote speakers (ArildUnderdal,Ronald Mitchell, Oran Young, Victor Galaz, SebastianOberthuer, and Joyeeta Gupta) provided “teasers” of theirkeynote papers in plenary and longer versions of thesepapers in parallel sessions. They were countered andappraised by respondents from both scientific and knowl-edge broker perspectives. Summaries of the keynote papersare included in this issue of the IHDPUpdate.In themorning of December 8th,participants presented

their research on applications of the IDGEC framework tohuman/environment interactions in themarine, terrestrial,

Research FOCI Analytic Themes

Fit Interplay

Scale

Causality Performance

Design

Flagship Activities

TerrestrialSystems

MarineSystems

AtmosphericSystems

The IDGEC Synthesis

Planning for the Institutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change (IDGEC) asone of IHDP’s original core projects began in

the mid-1990s. IHDP’s Scientific Committeeapproved the project’s Science Plan toward the end of1998, and the project launched an initial suite ofresearch initiatives during the first half of 1999. Now,the project is reaching the end of its lifecycle. A majorSynthesis Conference took place in Bali in December2006. This UPDATE newsletter summarizes andreflects the most important outcomes of IDGECresearch. It also discusses science-policy implementa-tion and looks at future research options. A generalsynthesis volume - along with several volumes onmore specific topes - is in progress and will be readyfor submission to the publisher during the first halfof 2007.IDGEC’s scientific contributions fall into two

broad categories. The project has produced resultsthat add to our general understanding of the rolesthat social institutions play wherever they occur. Ithas helped to pin down the conditions governing thecausal significance of institutions and developed anew way of thinking about institutional design. Atthe same time, the project has focused on more spe-cific themes relating to the role that institutions playin steering human-environment interactions. A par-ticularly noteworthy achievement in this regard cen-ters on the rapid growth of interest in institutionalinterplay or the interactions that occur in settingsfeaturing a number of distinct institutions that affectone another in more or less far-reaching ways.Over the last several years, IDGEC has focused

also on future directions. There is consensus withinthe human dimensions community that research onthe institutional dimensions of global environmentalchange must continue in some form. But there is alsoa call for innovation rather than a simple reautho-rization of IDGEC in its current form. The IHDP Sci-entific Committee is now considering proposalsregarding this issue; we expect the committee tomake decisions in the near future about the organiza-tion of ongoing research on institutional matters.One of IDGEC’s legacies will be a contribution to thedevelopment of innovative ways to carry forwardwork on institutional issues within the humandimensions research community.

OranYoung chaired the IDGEC Scientific SteeringCommittee until 2006.He is the current ScientificChair of IHDP; [email protected]

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 3

Institutional DimensionsT H E I D G E C S Y N T H E S I S C O N F E R E N C E

CONTENTSThe IDGEC Synthesis Conference – Institutions forSustainable Development in the Face of GlobalEnvironmental Change 1Heike Schröder

The Causal Significance of Institutions 4Arild Underdal

Evaluating the Performance ofEnvironmental Institutions 6Ronald B. Mitchell

Designing Environmental Governance Systems –The Diagnostic Method 9Oran R. Young

The Problem of Fit –Insights and Emerging Challenges 11Victor Galaz

Interplay – Broadening our Perspectiveon Governance through Institutions 14Sebastian Oberthuer and Thomas Gehring

The Problem of Scale in Environmental Governance 16Joyeeta Gupta

Unveiling theMiddle Man –IDGEC Findings and Science-Policy Interaction 19Heike Schröder

Future Research Directions in the InstitutionalDimensions of Global Environmental Change 21Frank Biermann

NewDirection of the Institutional Agenda –A Process as well as Architecture 23Agus Sari

IHDP Joins Efforts to Reform GlobalEnvironmental Governance 24

In Brief – News, Events,Calls 25

Publications 27

Addresses 28

and atmospheric domains. The afternoon’s themewas pol-icy and learning. Scientists, knowledge brokers, and practi-tioners debated issues such as institutional questions relat-ing to energy and climate change in India andChina, tradi-tional ecological knowledge and GEC, and teaching globalenvironmental change and governance. An additional ses-sion dealt with institutions as a crosscutting concern in theGEC research community.On December 9th, the final conference day, sessions

explored emerging research areas. The first half-day, led byLouis Lebel, focused on institutional change and stasis, thesecond half-day, led by Frank Biermann, explored futuredirections in research on institutions and governance,including questions regarding institutional architectures,agency beyond the state, allocation, and adaptation.

The Synthesis Conference concluded with plenary pre-sentations distilling IDGEC's scientific legacy (OranYoung), communicating key findings to policymakers(Simon Tay), and mapping future research directions(Frank Biermann). To celebrate the excellent achievementsof the conference, the IHDP invited all participants to aBalinese fisherman’s dinner on the beach.By all accounts, the conference was a major success.

Balinese hospitality, scientific analysis, and originality inmapping a new research agenda on institutions and gover-nance went hand in hand during these inspiring few daysin Bali.The organizers would like to thank our sponsors fortheir generous support and the participants of the 2006IDGEC Synthesis Conference for their enthusiasm and fortheir invaluable contributions. The conference papers,posters, and presentations archive will remain active on theIDGECwebsite athttp://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~idgec/abstracts.php.

HeikeSchröder is ExecutiveOfficer of the IDGEC Interna-tional Project Office, Bren School of Environmental Sci-ence and Management, University of California at SantaBarbara;[email protected];http://fiesta.bren.edu/~idgec/

Dear Readers and Members ofthe IHDP Network,

After almost four yearswith the IHDP Secretariat, Iam now leaving for a newlife in Brussels.My time withthe IHDP has been an excit-ing one, with many interest-ing tasks – of which the edi-torship of the UPDATE wasone. I am grateful for thesubstantial experience I gained, and for the many con-nections I could make during my time with the IHDP.I would like to thank you all, especially those of youwho sent me feedback or ideas for the newsletter, andwho were actively involved with its production. It hasbeen truly enjoyable to work for and with all of you,and I hope our paths might cross again in the future!

Ula LöwUntil further notice, please refer [email protected]

4 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsC AU S A L I T Y

The Causal Significance of InstitutionsBY ARILD UNDERDAL

Taking Stock: Four Major AchievementsImportant progress has been made over the past

decade or two in understanding the roles played by dif-ferent types of institutions in causing and mitigatingenvironmental change. In my own assessment, fourachievements stand out as particularly significant. Theyare accomplishments of the research community atlarge, but activities initiated by or in other ways relatedto the IDGEC program have contributed to theadvancement along all four frontiers.

(3) Progress in the study of institutional interplay andinstitutional complexes (see e.g. Young, 1996 and2002; Stokke, 2001; Raustiala and Victor, 2004;Oberthür and Gehring, 2006). IDGEC has played apioneering role in setting a new agenda forresearch, developing conceptual frameworks, andinitiating empirical studies.

(4) More ambitious and sophisticated use of themethodological repertoire of social science(Underdal and Young, 2004). We can see such atrend in more frequent use of techniques forexplicit, transparent and rigorous measurement, inmore systematic efforts to combine differentmodes of inquiry (such as intensive case studiesand extensive statistical analysis), and in studiesapplying tools that have rarely been used in thisfield before (such as Boolean logic and agent-based simulation).

Making Sense of DiversityDespite these and other achievements, an outsider

turning to the research literature for guidance may finda confusing diversity of messages. She will, for example,find different definitions of key concepts such as“regime effectiveness” and different taxonomies ofcausal mechanisms. In some instances assessments ofthe causal efficacy of the same institution diverge. Evenmore disturbingly, she will find that at the level of gener-al theory two important strands of research argue thatinstitutions are political constructs reflecting rather thanforming underlying and more fundamental orders (seee.g.Waltz, 1979; Concha, 2006).What is she to make outof all this?Important clues can be found by trying to separate

what is (merely) different from what is also incompati-ble. Analytic and methodological tools normally belongto the former category. In a strict sense, only substantivestatements can be incompatible. A closer examination ofhypotheses and conclusions that appear to be in conflictwill, though, show that a fair number of them are in factanswers to different questions, or propositions that referto incongruent (and perhaps poorly specified) domainsor use different definitions of key variables. Here I canoffer only a few examples in support of that argument.

“Logic” or “Fact”?Some studies frame questions and answers in terms

of deductive logic, others in terms of empirical evi-dence. Formal analysis derives implications of a shiftfrom one type of institutions to another. It proves that

(1) Improved understanding of the causal mechanismsand pathways through which institutions shapebehavior and outcomes. A number of studies pub-lished over the past 10-15 years have advanced ourunderstanding of how institutions produce effects(examples include Ostrom, 1990 and 2005; Haas,Keohane, and Levy, 1993; Victor, Raustiala, andSkolnikoff, 1998; Young, 1999). I am inclined torank this as the most important achievement – inpart because progress is substantial, in partbecause knowledge about mechanisms can helpguide the design of regimes and organizations.

(2) Improved understanding of patterns of variance,particularly as regards regime effectiveness. Severalmajor studies have been published identifying andexamining factors influencing institutional per-formance (e.g. Ostrom 1990; Victor, Raustiala, andSkolnikoff, 1998; Weiss and Jacobson, 1998; Young,1999; Miles et al., 2002; Breitmeier, Young, andZürn, 2006). As a result, we can now speak withgreater confidence and precision about conditionsfor effectiveness and causes of failure.

Bali impression

Photoby:YiliZhang

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 5

Institutional DimensionsC AU S A L I T Y

certain types of rules – including those specifying prop-erty rights, rules regulating access to a particularresource, and decision rules – can make an importantdifference, and will do so in certain circumstances.Empirical studies explore whether a particular – andoften marginal – change that has actually been made insome institutional arrangement did in fact lead to sig-nificant change. While the answer to the former ques-tion will often be a firm yes, the answer to the latter maywell be no.

Structure or Process?Questions about the causal efficacy of a particular

institution most often take its rules, norms, and proce-dures as established facts. Some studies do, however,take a broader perspective, focusing on the process ofinstitution-building, and perhaps also conceiving of thatprocess as part of a more comprehensive response tocommon challenges and opportunities. This shift offocus has at least two important implications. First, theprocess of institution-building may have importantconsequences beyond those that can be attributed to theformal regime or organization that it may produce. Sec-ond, conceiving of institution-building as embedded ina more comprehensive process of social learning andcollective action leads us to think about institutions asintegral elements of larger causal complexes, and thus asco-producing outcomes. As a consequence, the propor-tion of variance in a particular outcome that can beattributed to institutional arrangements specifically willdecline, while interaction effects involving institutionswill loom larger. This is not a matter of one being rightand the other wrong; what we see are simply answers todifferent questions.

Micro- or Macro-Level Effects?Recent studies assessing the effectiveness of interna-

tional environmental regimes report fairly encouragingresults (e.g. Breitmeier, Young, and Zürn, 2006; Miles etal., 2002). So do studies of community-based institu-tions for resource management (e.g. Ostrom et al., 1992;Gibson et al., 2005). It would, however, be a mistake toinfer from positive conclusions in a modest number ofcases that the universe of environmental institutionsmakes an equally significant contribution at the macrolevel. The reason is simply that most of these studies suf-fer from a perfectly understandable selection bias; theyfocus on cases where such institutions have been estab-lished and can be observed “at work”. In order to deter-mine the aggregate causal significance of institutions forenvironmental governance we would, however, have tostudy their absence as well as their presence. This wouldrequire a strategy of selecting cases in terms of humanactivities affecting the environment, or in terms of envi-

ronmental change caused by human activities. Such astrategy would require more attention to institutionsgoverning important economic activities such as pro-duction and consumption, trade and investment.

Some Major ChallengesHaving sorted out what is merely different, we are left

with some very real and substantive disagreement. Someof these instances pertain to specific cases, others tomore general conclusions.One interesting case where assessments diverge is the

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollu-tion (LRTAP). Several in-depth case studies concludethat the regime has contributed to an overall reductionin emissions, although varying substantially across pro-tocols (substances) as well as countries (Levy, 1993;Munton et al., 1999; Wettestad, 2002). By contrast, find-ings reported from multivariate regression analysesindicate that little or nothing of the reductions observedin SO2 emissions can be attributed to LRTAP (Ringquistand Kostadinova, 2005; Murdoch, Sandler, and Sargent,1997). This discrepancy raises two questions. First,which – if any – of these assessments is right? Second, isthe intensive case study approach more prone to deliver-ing “positive” findings than multivariate statisticalanalysis? Does it, for example, matter whether wechange the question from “what has this institutionachieved?” to “what causes variance in this particularoutcome?”It very well might. The pattern seen in the LRTAP

case is sufficiently plausible to raise concern in a fieldthat has so far relied heavily on one mode of inquiry.The implication for future research is straightforward:we need to make better use of the full methodologicalrepertoire of social science.At the level of general theory, one important issue

concerns the relative autonomy of specific institutionsin relation to more basic structures of norms and prin-ciples in which they are embedded. Students of institu-tions have been eager to demonstrate that regimes andorganizations do indeed deserve attention in their ownright. This drive to liberate institutions from the grip ofmore basic orders has produced substantial support forthe general argument. Yet, institutional autonomy is amatter of degree, and we need to know also its limita-tions. IDGEC could, in fact, respond to this challenge byincorporating research on links between layers of socialorders as another dimension of “vertical interplay”. Oneadvantage would be to conceptualize the relationship asone of interaction, with institutions not merely reflect-ing but – at least collectively and over time – also influ-encing deeper layers of norms and principles.Another controversy concerns the relative signifi-

cance of “rationalist” and “constructivist” mechanisms.Much to its credit, the study of environmental gover-

6 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsP E R F O R M A N C E

nance has taken an interest in both. Several major stud-ies pursue an eclectic strategy of combining mecha-nisms and pathways from both approaches (e.g. Young,1999). Despite these efforts, much remains to be donebefore we can speak with confidence about triggers,domains, relative significance, and co-produced effects.

Concluding remarksIn this article I have argued that institutions can best

be understood as embedded in more basic social ordersas well as in more comprehensive processes of sociallearning and collective response. This perspective sug-gests that the effects that can be attributed to regimesand organizations will often be co-produced, contingent,and characterized by thresholds and complex feedbackloops (Jervis, 1997; Steffen et al., 2004). Needless to say,the tasks of detecting, disentangling, and measuringeffects would all have been easier had it been otherwise.Yet, I point to these demanding challenges in the spiritof a vote of confidence. The study of institutional

dimensions of environmental change has made substan-tial progress over the past decade or two. The demandfor more precise and confident answers to increasinglycomplex questions about the institutions is rapidlygrowing. I see no way we can respond effectively to thatdemand by skirting the hard questions and confiningourselves to familiar designs and procedures.

AcknowledgementI gratefully acknowledge useful comments to the con-

ference paper from Oran R. Young, Regine Andersen,Antonio Contreras, and Thomas Gehring.

Arild Underdal is Professor of International Politicsat the University of Oslo, and has served as Rector of theUniversity of Oslo. He was a member of the originalIDGEC Scientific Planning Committee;[email protected]

References: www.ihdp.org/Publications

Evaluating the Performance ofEnvironmental InstitutionsWhat should we Evaluate and how should we Evaluate it?

BY RONALD B. MITCHELL

Questions of performance are central to scholars andpractitioners interested in environmental institutions.We want to know "how well did this institution do atachieving a particular objective?" Performance ques-tions move beyond causal questions of whether an insti-tution influenced outputs, outcomes, or impacts to askhow much an institution contributed to achieving – orat least contributed to progress toward – a specified goal.Questions of performance force us to specify a perform-ance dimension in which we will evaluate an institution,that is, a criterion or objective of judgment.Over the past decade, the IDGEC research communi-

ty has made considerable progress in understanding –and identifying the sources of – institutional perform-ance, often as part and parcel of work on institutionalcausality. IDGEC-related research has made significantprogress in evaluating how well institutions perform atachieving the environmental goals that institutional cre-ators set for themselves, looking at changes in environ-mental quality as well as changes in behaviors thatdirectly influence environmental quality. Performanceresearch has made considerable progress when focusingon environmentally-related behavior as a performance

dimension. Initial efforts focused on the extent to whichactors comply with institutional rules, especially thoseof international treaties (Young 1979; Fisher 1981;Young 1989; Haas 1989; Chayes and Chayes 1991;Lukasser 1991; Young 1992; Chayes and Chayes 1993;Mitchell 1994; Brown Weiss 1997; Brown Weiss andJacobson 1998; Underdal 1998).

ComplianceCompliance is attractive as a performance dimension

because it is often an important institutional objective,because institutions often establish clear compliancestandards that reduce the analytic assumptions requiredto identify a performance standard, and because highlevels of compliance usually contribute to, even if theydon't equate with, environmental improvement. Initialresearch on compliance laid a useful foundation for per-formance research by developing methodologies forcarefully constructing counterfactuals (see Fearon 1991)and by demonstrating the value of comparing perform-ance across institutions and across different actors(Young 1989; Underdal 1998; Breitmeier, Young, andZürn 2006). Whether explaining institutional perform-

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 7


ance by reference to parsimonious sets of broadly-defined factors (Haas, Keohane, and Levy 1993; Keo-hane and Levy 1996) or extensive lists of characteristicsof the institutions, actors, problem structure, and con-text (Brown Weiss and Jacobson 1998), this work high-lighted the need to distinguish institutional from exoge-nous explanations of performance variation.

Behavior ChangeAs several analytic shortcomings of compliance

became evident in the 1990s, much research beganfocusing on the broader concepts of behavior changeand effectiveness (see, for example, Underdal 1992;Young 1999; Victor, Raustiala, and Skolnikoff 1998;Miles et al. 2002). Several large research collectivesdemonstrated the value of focusing on social scientificnotions of effectiveness, defined as whether environ-mental institutions contributed to positive environmen-tal progress (Haas, Keohane, and Levy 1993; Keohaneand Levy 1996; Victor, Raustiala, and Skolnikoff 1998;Young 1999; Miles et al. 2002). The analytic shift fromcompliance to behavior change allowed scholars toengage previously obscured questions regarding the per-formance of institutions that lacked clear compliancestandards (Paarlberg 1993); that induced positivebehavioral change that fell short of (or exceeded) com-pliance (Levy 1993); and that induced unintended ornegative behaviors that made environmental mattersworse (Connolly and List 1996; Barnett and Finnemore1999).Like prior compliance research, research into the

influence of environmental institutions on environmen-tally-related behaviors and environmental quality havecarefully addressed issues of causality, carefully identify-ing counterfactuals, evaluating rival hypotheses, andisolating different causal pathways and mechanisms bywhich institutions lead to environmental improvement.Evaluating institutional performance in terms of behav-ioral change has been a particularly compelling area ofresearch for several reasons. Behavior change is a neces-sary condition for institutional influence on environ-mental quality. Isolating institutional from non-institu-tional influences requires exclusion of fewer alternativeexplanations of behavior change than of environmentalquality. And more – and more consistent – evidence isoften available about behaviors than about environmen-tal quality. Equally important, behavioral change mayoften be the most appropriate dimension in which toevaluate performance rather than a “second best” alter-native to evaluating improvements in environmentalquality. Many institutions address only a small fractionof the anthropogenic sources of an environmental prob-lem, so even if successful, environmental improvementsmight be small and difficult to identify. Other institu-tions identify clear environmental quality objectives but

require actions such as environmental monitoring orscientific research that have only attenuated links tothose objectives, making environmental quality indica-tors unlikely to identify good institutional performance.Yet other institutions delineate clear behavioral pre-scriptions and proscriptions, but identify vague orbroad environmental objectives that would be difficultto operationalize as performance dimensions. Finally, asevident in the Montreal Protocol case, we often want toevaluate the performance of many institutions onbehavior rather than environmental quality simplybecause influences on the latter will occur, or be evident,far sooner than on the latter.

Environmental QualityAll that said, impressive institutional performance in

behavioral termsmay fail to produce visible environmen-tal progress. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine claiming thatan institution performed well if it induced dramaticbehavioral changes that had no identifiable impact (andno foreseeable prospect of such impact) on environmen-tal quality. For the many local, national, and internationalinstitutions that explicitly commit themselves to mitigat-ing or eliminating particular environmental problems,looking at their influence on environmental qualitymakes particular sense.We also often want to evaluate theenvironmental performance of environmental institu-tions whose goals are vague and of the many security,economic, and social welfare institutions that have

Bali impression

Photoby:YiliZhang

8 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7


important environmental impacts even though environ-mental improvement was not a motivation for their cre-ation. Accurate measurements of ambient levels of suchpollutants or of the extent of habitat destruction can pro-vide strong evidence of whether institutions addressingthese problems have achieved their goals. Indeed, manyscholars have sought to identify how human institutionsinfluence environmental quality, whether intentionally ornot. The environmental Kuznets curve literature (seeGrossman and Krueger 1995; Shafik 1994; Selden andSong 1995; Harbaugh, Levinson, and Wilson 2000) andthe “free trade and environment” literature (on free tradeand the environment, see, e.g., Esty 1994; Antweiler,Copeland, and Taylor 2001) examine the influence ofnational and international economic institutions, respec-tively, on national levels of environmental degradation,often analyzing ambient concentrations of various air orwater pollutants rather than behavior.Considerable recent progress has been made in eval-

uating performance not only against a non-institutionalcounterfactual standard but coupling that with an eval-uation against the normative performance standards ofgoal attainment (or achievement), problem solving, andcollective optima (Underdal 1992; Helm and Sprinz2000; Hovi, Sprinz, and Underdal 2003a; Hovi, Sprinz,and Underdal 2003b; Young 2003; Breitmeier, Young,and Zürn 2006; Siegfried and Bernauer 2006). Theseapproaches, respectively, ask us to define performance asachieving the often-constrained goals of institutionalcreators, as solving the problem as defined by institu-tional creators, or as attaining a disinterested analyst'senvironmentally "ideal" solution (Siegfried andBernauer 2006; Sprinz et al. 2004). These efforts havegenerated proposals for innovative performance scoresthat move us toward an ability to compare the perform-ance of multiple institutions (Hovi, Sprinz, and Under-dal 2003a; Hovi, Sprinz, and Underdal 2003b; Young2003; Miles et al. 2002; Sprinz et al. 2004; Breitmeier,Young, and Zürn 2006; Siegfried and Bernauer 2006).

Areas for Future ResearchThis significant past progress of the IDGEC commu-

nity in evaluating institutional performance has laid thefoundation for exciting new areas for future research.There are a wealth of dimensions in which we can, andshould, evaluate institutional performance beyondbehavior change and environmental quality. In manycases, "leading indicators" can shed light on institution-al performance before evidence related to behaviorchange or environmental quality is available. Indeed,policy cycles in some arena dictate that research can bepolicy relevant only if completed before the institutioncould have been expected to have influenced behavior,as in current negotiations related to developing follow-on commitments to the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol long

before the first commitment period is complete. In suchcases and whenever the influence of institutions is indi-rect and delayed, there is value in evaluating "leading"institutional performance indicators, i.e., direct andimmediate institutional effects that, over time, can bereasonably assumed to generate environmentalimprovement. These include, inter alia, public commit-ments and changes in policy outputs and economicdecisions, improved scientific understanding of a prob-lem and potential solutions, and creating or strengthen-ing environmental norms. The economic costs and ben-efits, the cost effectiveness, and the cost efficiency ofenvironmental institutions are areas that deserve farmore scholarly attention than they have yet received.Likewise, questions of the influence of environmentalinstitutions on economic growth, development, equity,social justice, and traditional cultures are also areas ofconsiderable policy concern to which IDGECresearchers could devote considerably more attention.Finally, we also may care about institutional perform-ance in terms of good governance generally and howwell institutions perform particular functions. Finally,we often care how institutions act as institutions: howwell they perform certain functions or meet certainstandards of governance. In a variety of cases, we wantto judge institutions using criteria of stakeholder partic-ipation, accountability, transparency, or legitimacy,independent of their environmental performance(Wirth 1991; Stewart and Collett 1998).Future efforts to evaluate institutional performance

should extend and expand past efforts in several ways.Cer-tainly, efforts to evaluate the relative performance of differ-ent institutions should continue with increasing attentionto developing scales that a wide-range of scales consider toaccurately capture performance variation.Whilewe shouldcontinue to refine our methods of evaluating the perform-ance dimensions of behavior and environmental quality,we should also expand our focus to the economic, social,and cultural impacts of institutions, as well as looking athow well they promote functions such as monitoring, sci-entific research, etc., as well as more general characteristicsof good governance. A collective effort toward more rigor-ous, comparative, and multi-dimensional assessments ofinstitutional performance will allow the IDGEC commu-nity, a decade from now, to contribute to a fuller andmoreaccurate scholarly debate that can better inform environ-mental policy-makers and thereby contribute to betterglobal environmental management.

Ronald B. Mitchell is Professor at the Department ofPolitical Science, University of Oregon;[email protected];http://www.uoregon.edu/~rmitchel/


I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 9

Institutional DimensionsD E S I G N

As we move deeper into the Anthropocene (Crutzenand Stoermer 2000) – an era of human dominatedecosystems – the demand for governance to steer humanactions away from largescale and collectively harmfuloutcomes is rising steadily. During the Holocene, whenhuman actions did not loom so large as determinants ofthe dynamics of biophysical systems, the demand forgovernance centered on matters of efficiency and equity.These are by no means trivial concerns. The multiplicityof issues together with perpetual resource constraintsalways puts a premium on meeting the demand for gov-ernance at the lowest cost possible. Considerations ofequity or fairness – who gets what in the competitionfor natural resources and environmental services – arenever far from the surface. Now, we have entered a newera in which the impact of human actions on theresilience of socio-ecological systems is growing expo-nentially. We cannot ignore this factor in any effort toachieve sustainability. The demand for governance toinfluence the incentives of users of natural resourcesand environmental services and, in the process, to guidesociety toward outcomes that prevent dangerous humaninterference in the planet’s life support systems hasreached critical proportions.Governance systems are not the only drivers of the

human behavior that poses threats to sustainability. Asmany analysts have pointed out, population growth,increased consumption of goods and services, and thedevelopment of new technologies loom large as under-lying determinants of human behavior. Some go furtherto suggest that social institutions, including governancesystems, are only proximate forces and therefore of less-er importance in the dynamics of socio-ecological sys-tems. Whatever the merits of this argument – and it ishotly contested – it has not stopped analysts and policy-makers alike from devoting sizable amounts of energy to(re)forming governance systems as a strategy for achiev-ing sustainability in such systems. The explanation forthis is simple. Governance systems are more malleablethan factors like population and consumption patterns.We have a good deal of experience in the creation ofsuch systems. As a result, we have a sense of efficacyregarding institutional design that is lacking when itcomes to telling people how to plan their families orsuggesting to consumers what to buy.Turning our attention to institutional design, our

first thought is to seek out and codify a set of designprinciples (Ostrom 1990). Ideally, such principles

Designing Environmental GovernanceSystems: The Diagnostic MethodBY ORAN R. YOUNG

should spell out conditions that are either necessary orsufficient to achieve success in (re)forming governancesystems to address problems like acid rain, climatechange, or the loss of biological diversity. A necessarycondition, for example, might state that success will notbe forthcoming in the absence of monitoring mecha-nisms capable of tracking the behavior of members ofthe relevant user group. A sufficient condition, on theother hand, might state that success will follow if indi-vidual members of the group of subjects have no incen-tive to cheat.

Certainly, the idea of devising design principlesof this nature is appealing; their existence would makelife easier for those responsible for creating governancesystems and for administering them once they are inplace. But research conducted under the auspices of theproject on the Institutional Dimensions of Global Envi-ronmental Change (IDGEC) indicates that we cannotexpect to come up with design principles that are non-trivial in nature. The problems giving rise to a demandfor governance differ profoundly from one another. Asingle tractable model of the behavior of key actors (e.g.the notion that the actors are self-interested utility max-imizers) does not suffice to capture the behavior of allsubjects. The distribution of usable power or influencediffers drastically from one situation to another. Onesize does not fit all when it comes to (re)forming gover-nance systems to guide human actions that have thepotential to disrupt the planet’s life support systems.

Oran Young at the IDGEC Synthesis Conference,December 2006

Photoby:LeslieKing

10 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsD E S I G N

Despite their obvious attractions, we cannot set a lot ofstore by the prospect that research will turn up a set ofdesign principles that policymakers and administratorscan employ to good advantage.So, what is to be done? The need for scientifically-

grounded advice regarding the creation and operationof governance systems dealing with human-environ-ment relations will not go away. The response to thisneed articulated by members of the research communi-ty associated with IDGEC emphasizes what we havecome to call the diagnostic method (Young 2002). Likediagnosis in other fields, institutional diagnosis centerson identifying salient features of a given situation andassembling these features to arrive at well-groundedconclusions regarding the basic character of the situa-tion and the steps needed to address it successfully. As isthe case in medicine and other similar fields, diagnosis isa skill. Anyone can acquire the rudiments of this skill.But the best diagnosticians have a gift for assessing spe-cific situations that goes far beyond the capacity of thosewhose skill in this area is less finely honed.In the IDGEC community, we approach institutional

diagnosis through the use of diagnostic queries. Individ-ual queries elucidate key features of a situation calling forgovernance. Taken together, the responses to these queriescan yield a profile of the situation that supports recom-mendations about the nature of the governance systemneeded to address it. So far, four clusters of diagnosticqueries have emerged covering what we call the Four P’s:the nature of the problem, the character of the players, thecontent of the practices or rules of the game operative inthe issue area, and the politics of the situation. Space doesnot permit an extended discussion of each cluster here(Young forthcoming). But a few examples will suffice toprovide a sense of the diagnostic method.Problems involving human-environment relations

come in many sizes and shapes. Compliance is a centralissue for governance systems that address cooperationproblems, but it is not a concern for regimes dealingwith coordination problems like establishing shippinglanes or air traffic control systems. Problems that maygive rise to abrupt changes like rapid climate changeevents (RCCEs) present issues of governance that arequite different from those dealing with chronic prob-lems (e.g. many forms of air pollution) that are severebut unlikely to reach a tipping point precipitating non-linear changes. Some researchers have sought to rankthe full range of problems on a single scale runningfrom those that are most malign to those that are mostbenign (Miles, Underdal et al. 2002). Our work takes adifferent tack. We find it most helpful to pay carefulattention to the process of diagnosing a problem andthen to concentrate on designing a governance systemadapted to the critical features of the problem to besolved.

Similar issues arise with regard to the nature of theplayers expected to become subjects of a governance sys-tem. If the actors are appropriately treated as unitaryand rational, incentive systems (e.g. cap-and-tradearrangements) may be a good bet. But in cases wheretwo-level games are important or actors respond tonorms, beliefs, or other considerations of appropriate-ness, conventional incentive systems may yield poorresults (March and Olsen 1998). The size of the group ofsubjects is another factor that can have a substantialbearing on institutional design. The activities of a smallgroup of subjects (e.g. producers of ozone-depletingsubstances) are likely to be easy to monitor; significantclandestine actions are rare. But when the number ofsubjects is large - ranging into the millions in the case ofgreenhouse gas emissions - monitoring, much less tak-ing effective actions to deter violations, becomes a tallorder.Observations of much the same sort arise from a

consideration of prevailing practices and the landscapeof politics.When the rules of the game allow for startingwith a core group, as in the case of the Montreal Proto-col on ozone-depleting substances, it often makes senseto begin with a number of first movers and to devisearrangements that will attract others to join as the gov-ernance system evolves (Schelling 1978). The degree towhich power is concentrated within the group of stake-holders is always an important consideration. A privi-leged group or, in other words, a group in which onemember values the benefits of governance more thanthe cost of supply can make progress in efforts to solve aproblem, even when the solution exhibits the character-istics of a public good and there is no agreement on thefeatures of a cost-sharing mechanism (Olson 1965). Inother cases, agreement on the terms of such a mecha-nism will be essential. Nothing is more common thanthe creation of governance systems that seem attractiveon paper but that run into trouble in moving frompaper to practice due to an inability to raise the revenueneeded to make the system work.These examples are illustrative only. In real-world sit-

uations, the diagnostic method calls for a sustainedeffort to identify and highlight the salient features ofspecific situations and to design institutional arrange-ments tailored to meet their needs. But the overall mes-sage arising from IDGEC’s research on institutionaldesign is clear. There is little prospect that we will beable to come up with simple institutional recipes in theform of design principles stating necessary or sufficientconditions for solving problems arising in human-envi-ronment relations. This may seem discouraging tosome. Among other things, it means that dogmatic pre-scriptions (e.g. privatization is the key to success) andsimplistic analogies (e.g. it worked in the case of ozonedepletion, so why not try it in the case of climate

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 11

Institutional DimensionsF I T

change) are bound to fail. But this does not warrant theconclusion that we will be unable to learn how to creategovernance systems that prove successful in addressing awide range of problems (Cole 2002). The key to successlies in sharpening diagnostic skills and maintaining suf-ficient flexibility to allow for the development of gover-nance systems well-suited to specific situations.

Oran Young is the Chair of the IHDP Scientific Com-mittee and has chaired the IDGEC Scientific SteeringCommittee until 2006. He is Professor and Director ofthe Program on Governance for Sustainable Develop-ment at the Bren School of Environmental Science andManagement, University of California, Santa Barbara;[email protected]


The Problem of Fit

Insights and Emerging Challenges

BY VICTOR GALAZ

Humans and biophysical systems are closely inter-connected. Yet not only do we fall short of recognizingthe tight coupling between these systems, but the stakesof failing to harness the dynamic behavior of intercon-nected social-ecological systems are getting considerablyhigher. The loss of vital ecosystem services at a globalscale (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005); the far-reaching challenges posed by global environmentalchange (Steffen 2004); and the loss of resilience ofimportant ecosystems (Folke et. al. 2004), all providedramatic illustrations of the inability of multilevel gov-ernance to protect vital ecosystems. This is what hasbeen denoted “the problem of fit” (Folke et. al. 1998,IDGEC 1999, Young 2003).The implications should not be underestimated.

Changes in biophysical and social system interact inpoorly understood ways creating the opportunity ofmajor surprises and “tipping points” in both small scaleand large scale systems (Schneider and Root 1995,Schneider 2004, Holling 1986). Examples here are prac-tically irreversible shifts to degraded states in ecosystemssuch as coral reefs, freshwater resources, coastal seas,forest systems, savanna and grasslands, and the climateregime (Folke et. al. 2004, Scheffer and Carpenter 2003,Schneider 2004).

Why Resilience MattersThe fact that social and ecological systems are strong-

ly interconnected poses a serious test for existing gover-

nance systems. The challenge lies not only in developingmultilevel institutions and organizations for multiscaleecosystem management, but also to be in tune with thedynamics of interconnected social-ecological systems.That is, to be able to govern in periods of both incre-mental change when things move forward in roughlycontinuous and predictable ways, and abrupt changewhen experience is insufficient for understanding, whenconsequences of actions are ambiguous, and when thefuture of system dynamics is uncertain (Folke 2006).The dynamics of interconnected social-ecological

systems calls for scientific approaches that are able toelaborate how interacting ecological and governancesystems are able to deal with change and shocks. This iswhy we discuss “the problem of fit” through a “resiliencelens”, i.e. by focusing on the capacity of social-ecologicalsystems to deal with environmental and societal change,and to reorganize after shocks and surprises (Gunder-son and Holling 2002, Folke 2006).

The Anatomy of MisfitsHow do we identify a “misfit”? The answer has

important policy and scientific implications. It is rele-vant for policy makers because it brings to light the con-crete social and ecological implications of failing tounderstand and protect the function of vital ecosystems.And it is relevant for scholars because it forces us tospecify the underlying, and often interacting biophysicaland human mechanisms that explain the loss of

International Conference –Towards Sustainable Global Health

Bonn, Germany9 – 11 May 2007

www.gemini.de/global-health

12 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7


resilience. The identified mechanisms can be viewed aspotential “early warning signals” for societal actors ingovernance systems to react upon.The loss or active removal of biological diversity in

ecological systems can be viewed as an important warn-ing signal (denoted by threshold behaviour misfit). Aselaborated by Folke and colleagues (2004), this loss of“response diversity” seems tomake systemsmore vulner-able to change and stress. More precisely, disturbancesthat could be buffered before and help revitalize the sys-tem, can spark off practically irreversible shifts in bio-physical systems to states with less capacity to supportsocial welfare. This insight seems applicable on bothsmall and large scale ecological systems, such as shallowlakes, coral reefs, landscapes and even the global climaticsystem (Scheffer and Carpenter 2003, Schneider 2004).A similar argument has been advanced for institu-

tional diversity. As discussed by Bobbi Low and col-leagues (2003), redundancy and diversity in resourceregimes can be seen as a major source of stability andstrength as they can provide ways of coping with orreorganizing after, change and surprising events (Low et.al. 2003:103-108, see also Ostrom 2005). As argued byDavid Victor and colleagues, the fact that six paralleltrading systems for carbon dioxide (CO2) have emergedunder the framework provided by the Kyoto protocol,provides an effective way to not only decrease emissions,but also promote innovation and flexibility to changing

circumstances. The reason is that the self-organizeddiverse schemes each provide a “laboratory” with itsown procedures, stringency, and prices. This makes itpossible for policy makers to learn from possible suc-cesses and failures, and tap into insights from alternativetrading schemes when needed (Victor et. al. 2005).The inability of multilevel governance systems to

respond to the speed of changing circumstances isanother misfit (denoted by temporal misfit). Gover-nance must be able to not only coordinate relevantactors, but also achieve collective action rapid enough,i.e. before the resource is depleted and/or critical andirreversible thresholds are transcended. A number ofstudies indicate that the capacity of governance systemsto promote such a mobilization tends to be either tooslow (or non-existing) compared to the speed and scopeof change. Examples here are the difficulties of societalactors to monitor and buffer the impacts of invasivespecies (Miller and Gunderson 2004), as well as theinability of international institutions to monitor andrespond to the sequential depletions of key species inmarine food webs (Berkes et. al. 2006).The spread of crises across spatial scales and systems,

denoted by cascading effects, provides an additionalpossibility of misfit. Kinzig and others (2006) elaboratehow abrupt shifts from sufficient soil humidity to salinesoils and from freshwater to saline ecosystems, mightmake agriculture a non-viable activity at a regional scale

Des

ign

byK

lara

Wet

tre

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 13


and trigger migration, unemployment and the weaken-ing of social capital. One study showed how El Niño-Southern Oscillation-triggered droughts and floods cas-cade through a number of domains and scales, in theend inducing massive soybeans plantations in Brazil(Glantz 1990). Pascual and others (2000) looked at ElNiño-Southern Oscillation-related cholera outbreaks inLatin America and Southern Asia with serious healthand livelihood implications. These are just a few exam-ples of the tight coupling, large scale surprises and cas-cades embedded in social-ecological systems.Hence we should not only ask ourselves how well

governance is able to cope with incremental change anduncertainty, but also whether collective action can beachieved fast enough in oder to avoid abrupt irreversibleshifts (threshold behavior), or buffer cascading effectsunder high scientific and social uncertainty.There are of course interactions between the different

sorts of misfits, for example both spatial and temporalscale mismatches in water management, or both thresh-old and cascading effects in water-related vulnerabilityto climate change. Berkes’ and colleagues’ (2006) analy-sis of global “roving bandits” for example, illustrate bothspatial (local institutions vs. highly mobile fleets), tem-poral (rate of ecological and market driven change vs.slow evolution of international and local institutions)and probable threshold misfits (risk of collapse due togovernance failure). The interactions between misfits isa poorly studied issue, hence the examples and mecha-nisms presented here should be viewed as stylized illus-trations developed for heuristic reasons.

Enhancing the Fit – Adaptive Co-Managementand GovernanceOne discussed strategy to enhance the fit between

ecosystems and governance is adaptive co-management.Adaptive co-management refers to the multilevel andcross-organizational management of ecosystems. Suchmultilevel governance systems often emerge to deal withcrisis, and can develop within a decade (e.g. Olsson et.al. 2004). It combines the dynamic learning characteris-tic of adaptive management with the linkage character-istic of collaborative management (Wollenberg et. al.2000, Gadgil et. al. 2000, Ruitenbeek and Cartier 2001).Adaptive co-management seems to be a step in the

right direction, yet it also faces analytical limitationsassociated with the multilevel character of both socialand ecological change (Folke et. al. 2005). How to creategovernance that is able to “navigate” the dynamic natureof multilevel, and interconnected social-ecological sys-tems becomes a crucial issue in this context.The notion of “adaptive governance”discussed byDietz

et al. (2003) and Folke et. al. (2005) is interesting since it

can address the possibilities and need to draw on the mul-tilevel changing nature of governance systems (c.f. Pierreand Peters 2005, Kooiman 2003). Adaptive governanceconveys the difficulty of control, the need to proceed in theface of substantial uncertainty, and the importance ofdealing with diversity and reconciling conflict among peo-ple and groups who differ in values, interests, perspectives,power, and the kinds of information they bring to situa-tions (Dietz et al. 2003). Such governance fosters socialcoordination that enables adaptive co-management ofecosystems and landscapes. For such governance to beeffective, joint understanding of ecosystems and social-ecological interactions is required. This approach also rec-ognizes both the need to govern social and ecologicalcomponents of social-ecological systems, as well as build-ing a capacity to harness exogenous institutional and eco-logical drivers that might pose possibilities, or challengesto social actors (Folke et. al. 2005, see alsoDietz et. al. 2003.

Can there Ever be a “Fit”?The limits of institutional design are well-known. Yet

while institutional rigidity, veto-points and path-depen-dence seem to be general characteristic of institutions(Pierson 2000, Knight 1992), so is change and“punctuatedequilibria”(Baumgartner and Jones 1991,True et. al. 1999).Sometimes, these windows triggered by exogenous shockscan be used to enhance the “fit” (Olsson et. al. 2006,Young1989:372). The challenge is which exogenous shocks – andunder what circumstances - trigger the opening of “win-dows of opportunity” in highly dense multilevel gover-nance systems with multiple interacting actors. Getting abetter grip of the mechanisms behind different types ofmisfits, and finding governance solutions to build a capac-ity able to harness these mechanisms in a highly dynamicand interconnected social, political and ecological world isindispensable in preparing for the challenges of an uncer-tain andmost likely surprising future.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to acknowledge the important con-

tributions from co-authors of the chapter: Per Olsson,Thomas Hahn, Carl Folke (Stockholms Resilience Centre,Stockholm University) and Uno Svedin (Formas). Thesupport from the Swedish Research Council for Environ-ment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (For-mas) and the Centre for Transdisciplinary EnvironmentalResearch (CTM) Stockholm University, is acknowledged.

Victor Galaz is Researcher and Project Coordinator at theStockholm Resilience Centre (StockholmUniversity);[email protected]


14 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsI N T E R P L AY

bating climate change has nevertheless been positivebecause of the phase-out of CFCs that are also con-tributing to climate change.While a rich array of case studies has become avail-

able, research has had two major empirical foci so far.First, it has explored in considerable detail interactionsbetween the world trade order governed through theWTO and various multilateral environmental agree-ments, including such recent cases as the tensionbetween the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (WTO-TRIPS) and theCBD over access to and benefit-sharing from geneticresources. Second, empirical research has paid particularattention to interactions in climate governance. Occa-sionally, studies have also addressed other areas such asfisheries, the protection of the marine environment andselected aspects of the governance of the High Seas.However, there is ample room to cover further areas ofenvironmental governance (chemicals, protection ofspecies and biodiversity, ocean governance at large, etc.).

The Multifaceted Realm of InterplayWe have learnt over the past years that institutional

interaction can take very different forms with widelyvarying implications for governance. Research hasrevealed that the realm of institutional interplay is mul-tifaceted. Phenomena of institutional interaction occurat different levels and take various forms that ought tobe distinguished.First, institutions can enter into regulatory competi-

tion leading to inter-institutional tensions and conflict.The most prominent example of such problematic insti-tutional interaction that threatens to undermine effec-tive governance concerns the aforementioned conflictbetween the WTO and multilateral environmentalagreements over the regulatory authority regardingenvironmentally motivated trade restrictions.Second and more positively, international institu-

tions may also learn from each other. As their activitiesare frequently inter-related and they have to addresssimilar issues (such as reporting, monitoring, verifica-tion, implementation and enforcement), internationalinstitutions may benefit from information availablefrom other institutions. For example, the non-compli-ance procedure of the Montreal Protocol has providedan important inspiration and blueprint for other multi-lateral environmental agreements that have establishedsimilar mechanisms (for example, the compliance

Over the past decade, our knowledge about the inter-play or interaction of international institutions hasgrown with impressive speed.When the IDGEC SciencePlan first raised the “problem of interplay” at the end ofthe 1990s and claimed that “the effectiveness of specificinstitutions often depends not only on their own fea-tures but also on their interactions with other institu-tions”, only a handful of relevant studies existed. Lessthan a decade later, research on the effects that institu-tions have on the development and effectiveness ofother institutions has grown into an industry. This con-tribution reviews the major advances made so far.

The Significance of Institutional InterplayAfter nearly a decade of IDGEC research, we have

acquired compelling evidence that institutional interac-tion is an important factor shaping global environmen-tal governance. For example, theWorld Trade Organiza-tion (WTO), and in particular its Agreement on theApplication of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,has considerably influenced the Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) that preserves the right of countries to controlimports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).The Cartagena Protocol, in turn, has been instrumentalin precluding further regulation of the issue by theWTO. As this example indicates, the WTO-MEA rela-tionship is not a one-way street and Multilateral Envi-ronmental Agreements (MEAs) have recently beenfound to be remarkably successful in influencing theWTO.Another prominent example relates to interaction

between two environmental institutions: the Kyoto Pro-tocol on climate change and the CBD. By promotingforest management that maximizes the sequestration ofcarbon from the atmosphere, the Kyoto Protocol pro-vides incentives for mono-cultural tree plantations thatendanger biological diversity and thus run counter theobjectives of the CBD. In another case, the Kyoto Proto-col has been the target rather than the source of atwofold inter-institutional influence. On the one hand,the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozonelayer has done a disservice to climate protection by sup-porting the replacement of ozone-depleting substances(such as chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs) with alternativesthat are themselves powerful greenhouse gases con-trolled under the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, theoverall contribution of the Montreal Protocol to com-

Interplay: Broadening Our Perspectiveon Governance through InstitutionsBY SEBASTIAN OBERTHÜR AND THOMAS GEHRING

mechanism under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution).Third, research on institutional interaction has

revealed interesting regional-global dynamics in whichregional institutions drive the development of global onesin which they are nested. For example, the creation of theNatura 2000 network of nature protection sites under theEUHabitats Directive paved the way to agreement on thesimilar pan-European Emerald network under the BernConvention on the Conservation Of European Wildlifeand Natural Habitats. Similarly, the prohibition of wasteimports from industrialized countries into Africa underthe African Bamako Convention eventually led to theadoption of a ban under the global Basel Convention onthe transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.Fourth, institutions can reinforce each other’s effec-

tiveness by employing complementary governanceinstruments. The implementation of international com-mitments in EC law, for example, regularly strengthensenforcement because it activates the EU’s particularsupranational enforcement powers (which include thepossibility of enforcement through the European Courtof Justice). EU implementation of the environmentalstandards of the regional OSPAR regime for the protec-tion of the Northeast Atlantic provides a case in point.Interestingly, many of the internationally bindingOSPAR provisions themselves owe their existence to the‘soft’ political agreements reached in the InternationalNorth Sea Conferences held since 1984. Marine envi-ronmental protection norms thus trickled down fromthe North Sea Conferences to OSPAR and further to theEU, thereby activating additional capabilities contribut-ing to a more effective implementation.Furthermore, institutions can interact at all three lev-

els of the effectiveness of international institutions. Therules and decision-making procedures of one institu-tion may affect another institution’s negotiations andtheir output (e.g. the interaction between the WTO andthe Cartagena Protocol). In conjunction with or sepa-rately from such output-level interaction, the imple-mentation of an institution’s rules ‘on the ground’ byrelevant states or private actors may have importantconsequences for the performance of another institu-tion (behavioural outcome level; e.g. the interactionbetween the Kyoto Protocol and the CBD on forests).Finally, the effects of an institution on its ultimate targetof governance may have direct consequences for anoth-er governance target (impact level). For example, thesuccess or failure of the international climate changeregime may directly affect the chances of survival ofpolar bears governed by the polar bear regime.

The Prominence of Synergistic InteractionRecent research findings indicate, somewhat surpris-

ingly, that synergy is at least as common as disruption in

the realm of institutional interaction. Early contribu-tions to the debate, for example on theWTO and multi-lateral environmental agreements, highlighted the ten-sions and problems that can arise from a growing insti-tutional density. More recently, the evidence for theprominence of synergy among international institutionsis growing. For example, a comparative study of morethan 150 instances of interaction has found that amajority had led to synergy and only about a quarter todisruption. To be sure, conflict does pose severe prob-lems, especially between environmental and non-envi-ronmental institutions. However, institutional interac-tion has more beneficial effects and provides moreopportunities than thought earlier.We are only beginning to understand the implica-

tions of this finding. For example, political attention hasso far focused on cases of conflict and disruption. Incontrast, positive effects of institutional interaction arefrequently consumed without exploiting existing poten-tials for further improvement. Problematic interactionmay enjoy a higher salience because people generallyreact more strongly to the risk of losses than to theprospect of additional benefits. However, such a focusrisks losing important opportunities for enhancingeffective environmental governance.Furthermore, the finding is unsettling for recent dis-

cussions about reforming international environmentalgovernance. Proposals for aWorld Environment Organ-ization as well as for less radical step-wise reforms havebeen based on the presumption that institutional inter-play produces problematic results and ought to be min-imized. The synergy finding does not only require theproponents in this debate to adjust their reasoning. Italso calls for assessing carefully whether and to whatextent any proposed reform could preserve and enhancesynergistic institutional interaction.

IDGEC and the Road aheadIDGEC and its Science Plan have provided an impor-

tant focal point and an inspiration for research on insti-tutional interplay. IDGEC has also provided an impor-tant forum for the coordination of research efforts andthe exchange of research results. Hopefully, this capacitycan be preserved within IHDP in the future.Despite the remarkable progress made, research on

institutional interplay still is an infant industry. Lots ofopen questions remain to be addressed. For example,large strides remain to be made towards specifying nec-essary and sufficient conditions for the emergence ofinstitutional interaction. Also, the integrated assessmentof the nature, evolution and consequences of largerinstitutional complexes composed of several institutionsthat co-govern a particular issue-area remains to beadvanced. Furthermore, we ought to make moreprogress towards understanding which policies might

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 15

Institutional DimensionsI N T E R P L AY

16 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

Institutional DimensionsS C A L E

best help minimize disruption and enhance synergy. Intracking these questions, there is furthermore consider-able scope to strengthen the empirical base of ourresearch, including exploring further the significanceand governance effects of institutional interplay.Pursuing this line of research promises to greatly

advance our understanding of governance throughinstitutions. With the growing institutional density, theinteraction of various environmental and non-environ-mental institutions has become a common feature of(environmental) governance. The interplay perspectivemay well provide an appropriate new paradigm forresearch on governance through institutions. This

research may not only reveal the emerging meta-struc-tures of international environmental governance. Itcould also provide an important basis for identifyingand exploring options for interplay governance.

SebastianOberthür is Academic Director of the Institutefor European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels;[email protected] is Professor of International Politics atthe Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Germany;[email protected]


The Problem of Scale inEnvironmental GovernanceBY JOYEETA GUPTA

1. IntroductionThe problem of scale is a key analytical theme in

studies on the institutional dimensions of global envi-ronmental change. Scale is a complex term, and isdefined and used differently in different disciplines. Thispaper reflects on some emerging consensus notionsderived from three international workshops, work inprogress on a book co-edited with Dave Huitema, andthe rich response during the Synthesis Conference of theInstitutional Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange project held in Bali in December 2006. Taking acosmopolitan and social science viewpoint, it focuses onthe politics of scale. It briefly discusses scaling as a polit-ical instrument for framing problems and solutions; thetransferability of propositions from one level to anoth-er; and focuses on the exploratory, explanatory and pre-dictive value of the concept of scaling. It also drawssome policy implications.Scale is defined as an analytical ruler against which

one can measure (IDGEC 1998, Young 2002). Key scalesthat are relevant for environmental governance includethe administrative scale (from local through national toglobal); the time scale (from the past through present tothe future) and the spatial scale (from micro through tomacro). Scaling up and down is the process of movingup and down levels on a particular scale.

2. Scaling as a Political Instrument:Framing Problems and SolutionsScaling is implicitly or explicitly used by actors and

networks as a tool to frame a particular problem. Byframing problems along specific levels on different

scales, the contours of the problem change and, hence,the solutions that are relevant change. Sometimes thisresults from the search for an optimal level at which toaddress problems; sometimes it is the result of framingproblems at specific levels in order to make certain solu-tions more relevant. Such framing of problems can alsochange over time. Thus, in the forestry regime, whileCanadians continued to argue that forestry was a globalproblem, the US and international NGOs changed theirposition to argue that forestry should be treated as anational issue; while Brazil continued to argue thatforestry is a national issue,Malaysia changed its positionbetween 1992 and 2006 to argue that forestry should betreated as a global issue (Tienhaara forthcoming; seeFigure below). Underlying these positions are a numberof different and evolving reasons.

Figure 1. Changing positions of actors on the level atwhich forest-related issues should be dealt with over time.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 17


The literature shows that actors scale up problems fordifferent reasons (see Table 1). For example, when actorswish to take into account externalities (the indirectcauses and impacts) they scale up problems to the glob-al level. Many of these reasons are state-centric.Scaling down is justified to enhance the understand-

ing of local causes, patterns and interests to improve theresolution (Vermaat and Gilbert forthcoming; Spieren-burg forthcoming; Bulkeley forthcoming; van denBergh forthcoming) and the need to mobilize andempower local actors to address their own problems.Less positive arguments include that downscaling maybe used to avoid liability for externalized effects, todivide and control, include and exclude actors, to pro-tect sovereignty and local rights and/or to bypass thenation state (e.g. Compagnon forthcoming).

3. Scaling as a Political Instrument:Framing PropositionsPropositions are defined here to include norms, prin-

ciples, concepts, instruments and tasks. The analysisreveals (a) that only some propositions are being scaledup and down at the cost of others, (b) some of the con-

ditions under which propositions can be scaled up anddown, and (c) that there may be need for identifyinglevel-specific characteristics and propositions.

3.1 Which Propositions are being Scaled upand down?One can note that while good governance (including

the rule of law) is being promoted at national and locallevels, it is not being actively promoted at global level.While some environmental principles are promoted atglobal level (e.g. precautionary principle), others are not(e.g. the polluter pays principle) (Gupta 2007). Whileintellectual property rights are being scaled up to theglobal level, indigenous knowledge and communityinformation receive only rhetorical support at globallevel creating space for ‘biopiracy’ (Abu Amara forth-coming). Concepts consistent with neo-liberal capital-ism, such as emissions trading and private sector partic-ipation in environmental resource management andprotection for foreign investors, are being scaled up toglobal level.The above examples show how the scaling up/down

of propositions is uneven. Those propositions that are

Types Inductively developed hypotheses that support scaling up

To enhance under-standing of problem

To take account of externalities or indirect causes, to enhance understanding

To determine global limits to a problem

To understand the ideologies driving decisions

To include countries and other social actors and create greater political legitimacy

To protect the common good, to attain sustainable development

To promote goodgovernance

To include countries and other social actors and create greater political legitimacy

To protect the common good, to attain sustainable development

To promote domesticinterests

To postpone decisions, or avoid taking measures

To make domestic policies more cost-effective and to prevent the loss of competitivenessfor industry, to pressurize other national entities to create a level playing field andminimize free-riding

To avoid a race to the bottom and promote the use of better technology

To promote extra-territorial interests

To gain access to resources in another part of the world, although it might also imply a lossof control over national resources.

To bypass government agencies in other parts of the world either because of their lack ofmotivation or capacity

To create a level playing field, politically speaking, to enhance the power of a group ofcountries.

To enhance the opportunities for problem solving through issue-linkages, to enlarge thescope of negotiations to enable more opportunities for trade-offs to be made.

Table 1: Reasons for scaling up a problem

18 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7


being scaled up are, in general, supported by ideologicalreasoning, theories that are consistent with such ideolog-ical reasoning and political support from the actors andnetworks that believe in this reasoning. Actors use scalarstrategies including scalar shopping (in choosing themost effective level to operate in) and scalar jumping (tobypass specific levels in the decision-making process) topromote their interests (Gareau forthcoming).

3.2 The Conditions under which Scaling upand down of Instruments WorksHow transferable are propositions from one level to

another? Scaling up and down of propositions tends tocreate the impression that only the scalar dimensionchanges, but that the propositions themselves remainintact. However, the literature shows that in the scalingup and down process, propositions need to be trans-formed to fit in specific contexts. The literature revealsthat mathematically scaling down propositions in dif-ferent parts of the world often leads to inappropriatepolicy design for specific contexts at best and may evenbe destructive in that they may destroy the local com-munities’ own methods of problem solving. Down-scal-ing may be possible where there is a significant degree ofhomogenization in society (where the nature of theproblem, scientific knowledge, production and con-sumption processes, legal framework, contractual envi-ronment, the values, beliefs and interests, are similar).Within the EU, there is an active process of scaling upand down of problems and solutions where not justindividual instruments are transferred but the entireframework of policymaking is transferred to other lev-els. But even here the scaling process reveals majorpower struggles (Huitema and Bressers forthcoming;Benson and Jordan forthcoming; Bulkeley forthcom-ing). A ten-step method has also been developed toshow how one can scale up and down traditional knowl-edge in Africa for use elsewhere, but Büsscher andCritchley (forthcoming) emphasize the need for knowl-edge brokers who can transform the knowledge so thatit is sensitive to the level-related patterns and contexts inwhich it is to be applied.

3.3 Allocating Tasks to Different LevelsOn specific problems, there may be reasons to argue

that different propositions – tasks – belong to differentlevels because of specific level-related characteristics. Inthe area of chemical management, there may be reasonsto allocate data generation and risk assessment, and thescientific rules on how such methods should be devel-oped, to the global level and then let each countrydecide on its own risk management strategy (Winterforthcoming). Empirical evidence shows how differenttasks are allocated to different levels in other regimes aswell.

4. Scale – Theoretical SignificanceOne can conclude that scale matters in environmental

governance. First, the concept of scale can provide a com-mon platform for collaborating between different disci-plines that operate at different levels (e.g. InternationalRelations at international level; anthropology at local level)or focus on different aspects of environmental governance.Second, the politics of scale influences global environmen-tal governance. Third, different theoretical and disciplinaryapproaches may tend to push analysis in opposite direc-tions. While engineers and neo-classical economists maybe tempted to instrumentally scale up and down; foranthropologists, ecological economists, and political scien-tists – the context is critical to problem solving. Fourth, astudy of the reasons for scaling up and down in differentfields helps to enhance the analytical skills of the researcherand can promote a deeper understanding of how scalaranalysis can influence problem solving (exploratory andexplanatory role). Fifth, scalar analysis can help to predictthe impact of the politics of scale on addressing environ-mental policies based on an extrapolation of past trends. Inthe future, one may wish, inter alia, to closely examinecross-scale interactions to understand their relevance forscience and policy (Lebel and Imamura, forthcoming).

5. Scale and Policy ImplicationsScalar analysis helps to identify a number of policy-

relevant inferences. This includes the recognition thatthere is no optimal level of a problem within differentscales. Such levels are identified through a framingprocess; and such framing changes both the nature of theproblem, its statistics as well as the menu of solutions thatcan be applied. For global and globally recurring prob-lems, the solutions need to be bothmulti-level andmulti-scale; they need to be mutually consistent, context rele-vant solutions at different levels that take into account thespecific features of each level within the scale. Wheresolutions are downscaled and developed endogenously tothe context in which they are to be applied they may beirrelevant and/ or destroy the self-organizing capacity ofgroups. In other words, they may serve to disempowerlocal people and ignore their problem-solving approach-es, since these are not ‘legible’ for the outsider. Thus con-text-relevant solutions need to be crafted in close cooper-ation with local actors, with context sensitivity by knowl-edge brokers. Where the goal is to protect ecosystems; afocus on larger ecosystems may often imply that smallerecosystems are also protected; however a focus on smallecosystems or specific species may lead to greater biodi-versity loss. Finally, while addressing problems at globallevel allows for dealing with all externalities, the limitedinstitutional framework does not always result in effectivepolicy articulation and implementation. However, whileaddressing problems at local community level may lead tobetter policy articulation and implementation, there may

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 19

be a tendency to externalize indirect causes and impactswitch may not lead to effective problem-solving. There isthus a need to balance between these two extremes.

AcknowledgementsI thank the Netherlands Science Foundation’s VIDI

grant (452-02-031) and support from the NetherlandsRoyal Academy of Science for organizing two work-shops and all authors and my co-editor, Dave Huitema,on the manuscript on scale.

Joyeeta Gupta is member of the IDGEC Scientific Steer-ing Committee, and Professor at the Institute for Envi-ronmental Studies at the Faculty of Earth and Life Sci-ences, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam;[email protected]


Bonn Dialogues onGlobal Environmental ChangeClimate Change: Control, Adapt, or Flee

17 April 2007, Bonn

www.bonn-dialogues.org

Organizers: IHDP, DKKV, UNU-EHS

Unveiling the Middle Man

IDGEC Findings and Science-Policy Interaction

BY HEIKE SCHROEDER

Arthur Schopenhauer once said that “All truth passesthrough three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it isviolently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evi-dent.” While real-world examples demonstrating thevalidity of this assertion abound, we do not yet fullyunderstand the drivers of such (often quite sudden)shifts. The science-policy interface here is crucial, andwindows of opportunity for institutional reformationopen and significant shifts in public policy are suddenlypossible, but this may not last long and these windowsclose again. Often, intermediaries such as boundaryorganizations, knowledge brokers, science-policy net-works or champions for a certain cause play a crucialrole in this dynamic.In recent years, IHDP has embraced its role as an

intermediary between science and policy. The success oflast year’s Science-Policy Dialogue in Berne shows theoverwhelming demand for exchange among the twocommunities.Not only has IDGEC produced policy-relevant find-

ings on the role of institutions as a determinant ofhuman-environment relations. The IDGEC analyticalframework can also be applied to science-policy interac-tion itself and offers important insights into this rela-tionship.The analytic theme of scale identifies different levels

regarding the balance between scientific and political

influence in policymaking. This balance ranges from thelevel of pure or ‘virtuous’ science-policy interaction overthe level of politicized science to the level of a tainted or‘corrupt’ science-policy relationship. There exists, ofcourse, every shade from unilateral to reciprocal influ-ence between these examples.The more virtuous the science-policy relationship,

the more the scientist’s intention to improve public pol-icy and the policymaker’s conviction to only considerthe best available science when making public policywill be.Somewhere in the middle, political or economic

pressures may influence the findings of scientificresearch or influence the way the research is disseminat-ed, reported or interpreted. The IPCC and its Sum-maries for Policymakers are perhaps the best studiedexample of politicized science.On the far end of the scale, corrupt science is charac-

terized by (pseudo) scientists pursuing a private interestor tweaking results to satisfy the agenda of the sponsorof this ‘research’. Policymakers, in turn, may cherry-pickthe science that supports their predetermined policypreferences or they may deliberately ignore scientificrecommendations or publicize false testimonies distort-ing the pros and cons regarding certain policy positions.The science-policy interface is also impacted by the

interplay between the cyclical patterns in which both

Institutional DimensionsS C I E N C E - P O L I C Y I N T E R A C T I O N

20 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

science and public policy tend to operate. While thestages of these two cycles are strikingly similar, the sub-stantive outcomes will tend to converge or deviatedepending on the degree of science-policy interaction.The level of balance between science and politics will, inturn, determine the level of public versus private interestthat is pursued with this science-policy relationship.In both cases, agendas are set (usually at a high level)

and problems are framed (often embedded in political,economic, social or scientific goals and norms). Activi-ties and initiatives are then implemented (through poli-cies, research activities and eventually peer-reviewedpublications) and results are synthesized or assessed(through assessment processes or policy evaluations).The most significant overlap occurs during the stages

of problem framing and result assessment. If goals andnorms diverge among science and policy communities,there will be little synergistic interaction. To give anexample, if the problem framing from the scientific per-spective is that we need to decarbonize our lifestyles tosufficiently reduce GHG emissions and the problemframing from the policy perspective is that we need tolimit emissions in a way not to hurt industry, then sci-ence-policy interaction in a mutually beneficial way willbe difficult. Assessment processes and policy evaluationsare in most cases conducted by intermediaries. Here, thescalar dimension is important in determining how sci-entific versus politicized the assessment is.Assuming a temporary lag between the science and

the policy cycle, interplay between science and policy iscommonplace. For example, the way a problem is scien-tifically framed is likely to impact whether or not thisproblem gets priority over others on the policy agenda.Turning to IDGEC, the project’s highest priority has

always been the implementation of its research agendaand the publication of this research in academic booksand journals. Yet, the project aimed from the outset toalso publish for a policymaker and practitioner audi-ence and to draw in policy and practitioner communi-

ties and to build science-policy partnerships. The make-up of the IDGEC Scientific Steering Committee hasalways included a mix of scientists, practitioners, andknowledge brokers. The IDGEC Science Plan specifical-ly mentions the UN Commission on Sustainable Devel-opment (UNCSD) as a strategic partner. The CSD wascreated in 1993 to address the theme of “internationalinstitutional arrangements” as called for in Chapter 38of Agenda 21. (Young 1998)In the first couple of years, IDGEC engaged in not

only refining the project’s analytical framework but alsoin developing scoping reports for Flagship Activities toapply the project’s conceptual framework to a numberof issue areas. IDGEC chose three domains of centralimportance to policymakers and practitioners coveringterrestrial systems with studies on the Political Economyof Tropical and Boreal Forests (PEF), atmospheric sys-tems with a Carbon Management Research Activity(CMRA), and oceanic systems with research on the Per-formance of Exclusive Economic Zones (PEEZ).Members of IDGEC held workshops and organized

panels at academic and policy meetings to develop andreport on research activities around these domains. Anumber of publications have concluded these FlagshipActivities in recent years. For example, an edited volumeon A Sea Change: The Exclusive Economic Zone andGovernance Institutions for Living Marine Resources(Springer), sums up the findings of the PEEZ project.The edited volume includes contributions from a mix ofacademics and practitioners and is explicitly addressedto policymakers and practitioners.To explore the policy relevance of IDGEC findings as

part of the project’s two-year long synthesis process,IDGEC has placed increased emphasis on the impor-tance of strategic partnerships with projects and insti-tutes with a focus on applications and policy. IDGECheld a side event at the 14th session of the CSD in May2006 to explore how institutions can help address thechallenges of energy, industrial development, air pollu-tion, and climate change. To begin the dialogue withpolicymakers about the policy relevance of IDGEC’ssynthesis results, IDGEC invited a senior advisor to theMinister of the Environment of Indonesia to chair andcomment on the presentations.This dialogue was continued at the IDGEC Synthesis

Conference in December 2006 in Bali, Indonesia. A half-day was dedicated to an informal consultation to pre-pare for CSD-15 with the goal of exploring the institu-tional and governance aspects regarding energy and cli-mate change in India and China. The participants of thisconsultation have formulated a set of recommendationsfor CSD-15.In addition, knowledge brokers were charged with

drawing out the policy relevance of the key synthesispresentations on IDGEC’s research foci analytic themes.

Bali impression

Photoby:YiliZhang

Institutional DimensionsS C I E N C E - P O L I C Y I N T E R A C T I O N

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 21

Institutional DimensionsF U T U R E R E S E A R C H D I R E C T I O N S

Members of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) par-ticipated in the conference and also took on the role ofknowledge brokers. The policy relevance of IDGECfindings was summarized in a presentation during theclosing plenary session.The project’s conceptual framework is not only poli-

cy-relevant as it provides important conceptual insightsinto the problem at hand, the politics around it, theplayers involved, and the practices and processes pre-vailing (Young forthcoming). This framework is usefulalso for understanding the science-policy dynamicsitself and with this provides direction for overcoming

the impasses to constructive science-policy interaction.Both the understanding of the dynamics and patterns ofthe science-policy interface from an institutional per-spective and continual exchange among the two com-munities with the help of intermediaries who have equalfooting in both are the keys to this puzzle.

Heike Schroeder is the Executive Officer of IDGEC anda Postdoctoral Researcher at the Bren School of Envi-ronmental Science and Management, University of Cal-ifornia, Santa Barbara;[email protected]

Future Research Directions on theInstitutional Dimensions of GlobalEnvironmental ChangeBY FRANK BIERMANN

After eight years of intense work, the IHDP core proj-ect Institutional Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange (IDGEC) is coming to a closure. In mid 2004,members of the IDGEC community therefore initiated adiscussion and consultation process on how a secondphase of IDGEC could be developed and organized. Inthis article, I summarize core findings of these delibera-tions and outline a possible new research program asboth a continuation and extension of IDGEC.First of all, members of the community agree that any

renewed effort in this field needs to build on the success-ful track record of IDGEC. The project has for manyyears provided an extensive and ambitious researchagenda on the institutional dimensions of global envi-ronmental change and maintained at the same time itsintellectual link to the larger social science communityand especially the new institutionalism.All this has madethe IDGEC project a success story, and a new project willhave to build on this achievement.However, a renewed effort will also need to go beyond

what has been realized within IDGEC and take recentdevelopments in the field into account. First, in view ofthe discourse on governance and institutions over thelast decade, it is generally agreed that the overall direc-tion of a research program should extend beyond insti-tutions and target the larger area of governance systemsat local, national and global levels.While governance hasbeen defined in a variety of ways, it usually adds to theconcept of institutions a dynamic perspective that looksat processes of governing; a stronger focus on gover-nance systems that integrates research on interlinkages ofsingle institutions; and a stronger focus on actors and

especially non-state actors. At the national level, gover-nance usually denotes new forms of regulation that differfrom traditional hierarchical state activity and impliessome self-regulation by societal actors, private-publiccooperation, and new forms of multilevel policy. Theconcept of governance is thus broader than the conceptof institutions. However, governance systems generallyinclude one or several institutions, and therefore muchof the IDGEC legacy on institutions will be an integralpart of a governance research agenda.Second, a new research effort will need to take cog-

nizance of the creation of the Earth System Science Part-nership (ESSP) of all four global change programs* andthe increased interest in having governance and institu-tions as crosscutting research themes within the ESSPnetwork, including incorporating governance into for-mal models and interdisciplinary research programs. Inthe 2001 Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, thefour global change programs have “urgently” called for“an ethical framework for global stewardship and strate-gies for Earth Systemmanagement.”While this notion ofearth system“management” raises concerns within socialsciences, in which “management” is often related tonotions of hierarchical steering, planning and control-ling of social relations, it can be replaced by the broaderconcept of governance.

* The ESSP consists of: The International Geosphere-Biosphere Pro-gramme (IGBP), the International Programme on Biodiversity(DIVERSITAS), the International Human Dimensions Programmeon Global Environmental Change (IHDP), and theWorld ClimateResearch Programme (WCRP)

22 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7


A possible direction for a new research programwould thus be to conceptualize it around the overarchingconcept of “earth system governance.” This researchwould be broader than traditional environmental policyand governance, yet also narrower than the entire area ofthe human dimensions of global environmental change.It would concentrate, instead, on the sum of the formaland informal rule systems and actor-networks at all lev-els of human society (from local to global) that are set upin order to influence the co-evolution of human and nat-ural systems in a way that secures the sustainable devel-opment of human society (cf. Biermann 2007 in moredetail).What would be the specific questions that are most

relevant to the field of earth system governance in thenext decade? Clearly, some existing, yet not fully resolvedresearch problems of IDGEC will need to remain part ofa new research program.However, a new programwouldalso need to investigate additional questions that havecome to the fore in recent years. I outline here five possi-ble clusters of questions around earth system governancethat draw on existing IDGEC work, but also extend theframework and include new aspects.The Problem of Architecture. First, one main area of

research will be the analysis of entire systems of institu-tions, a renewed focus on horizontal and vertical institu-tional interactions, and on non-environmental institu-tions, such as trade or investment. One outcome of theIDGEC project is that we now have a better understand-ing of the creation, effectiveness and interaction of inter-national environmental regimes, as well as bettermethodological tools to study these phenomena. How-ever, the macro-level – that is, the larger systems of insti-tutions – has remained largely outside the focus of themajor research programs. Given the advances in institu-tional analysis, further progress now requires a comple-mentary research program that analyses this macro-level: the “architecture” of earth system governance, thatis, the interlocking web of principles, institutions andpractices that shape decisions by stakeholders at all levels.Research on architectures of earth system governancewill build on most existing IDGEC activities and providea venue for continued research on most IDGEC topics,notably its analytical themes – the problems of fit, inter-play and scale – but also its more recent focus on tradeand environment.The Problem of Agency beyond the State. A second

cluster of new research topics addresses the growing roleof non-state actors. Many vital institutions of earth sys-tem governance are today inclusive of, or even driven by,non-state actors, ranging from public non-state actorssuch as intergovernmental bureaucracies to purely pri-vate actors such as environmentalist alliances, scientificnetworks, and business associations. Their activities areno longer confined to lobbying or advising governments

in the creation and implementation of internationalrules. Increasingly, non-state actors participate in globalinstitutions and negotiate their own standards, as in theForest Stewardship Council. The effectiveness of suchinitiatives, however, is insufficiently understood. Thus,the major effort of the 1990s on analysing intergovern-mental environmental regimes needs to be complement-ed by a similar research program on “global participato-ry governance” that explores the public-private and pri-vate institutions in earth system governance.The Problem of Adaptive Governance. Third, global

environmental change requires governance systems at alllevels to prepare for and adapt to its consequences. Thisincludes the problem of governance for adaptation aswell as the problems of adaptive governance systems, ofinstitutional dynamics, and of institutional learning.Eventually, this also poses the question of defining corefunctions of the “adaptive state.” A research focus onadaptive governance would form a natural continuationand extension of the existing IDGEC work on vulnera-bility, adaptation and resilience as well as the work onwater.The Problem of Accountability. Fourth, effective

architectures of earth system governance generate prob-lems of accountability and legitimacy. Earth system gov-ernance must be perceived as legitimate by all stakehold-ers, and its representatives be accountable to their con-stituencies. The research needs here are both theoreticaland practical: theoretically, we have to analyse how toconceive of accountable and legitimate earth system gov-ernance beyond the nation state. Practically, we need todesign and develop mechanisms of earth system gover-nance that provide the needed accountability and legiti-macy and that guarantee participation of civil societythrough mechanisms that vouchsafe a balance of opin-ions, interests, and perspectives.The Problem of Allocation.Fifth, politics is about the

distribution of resources and values, and earth systemgovernance is no different.With the increasing relevanceof earth system governance in the 21st century, alloca-tion mechanisms and criteria will thus become centralquestions to be addressed by social scientists as well asdecision-makers. Research in this field has been scarce inthe past, in particular regarding empirical research pro-grams that could lend substance to the more policy-ori-ented, philosophical treatises on equity. Research isneeded on allocation both as an independent variable –what are the effects of governance mechanisms with dif-ferent modes of allocation – and on allocation asdependent variable, that is, who gets what throughprocesses of earth system governance?Within a project on earth system governance, it would

be feasible to combine these five research foci withregional and sectoral research efforts as larger case studyareas. This would mirror the successful program on

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 23


“flagship activities” within IDGEC, and could be linkedwith joint ESSP projects. For example, a research pro-gram on earth system governance could, in cooperationwith the ESSP Global Water System Project, focus onstudying the problems of architecture, non-state agency,adaptiveness, accountability and allocation with theexample of local, national or global water regimes. Con-versely, research findings on one of these five researchthemes would be of interest for all joint projects andcould also be analysed through cross-sectoral research,for example concerning the cross-cutting relevance ofmodes of allocation in governance in the areas of water,health, food, and carbon management.Finally, a renewed research effort on earth system gov-

ernance within IHDP and the Earth System Science Part-nership will require a focus on methodological innova-tion. This relates, first, to the possibilities and problemsof integrating social science research in computer-basedmodeling. Several programs in this direction are under-way, including into the fields of qualitative modeling,agent-based modeling, game theory, or scenario devel-opment, and it seems crucial to critically explore the ana-lytical value of these approaches. Second, social scientistswithin the Earth System Science Partnership need toreemphasize the “social” aspects of global changeresearch, that is, the social construction of knowledge,the cultural and temporal embedding of the researcher,and the reflexivity of social knowledge. Importantadvances have been achieved in the field of the participa-

tory appraisal of research and policies, which have notyet been systematically integrated into IDGEC-relatedresearch.In sum, an international research program that would

focus on earth system governance appears as a promisingoption for a new IHDP project in this field. A commontheme of “earth system governance” would reflect abroadening of the institutional focus of IDGEC towardsthe earth system analysis community, as well as a broad-er focus on entire governance systems that include, butare not limited to, institutions. Further conceptual devel-opment of this field is expected from the 2007 Amster-dam Conference on the Human Dimensions of GlobalEnvironmental Change, to be held 24-26 May 2007 withthe theme “Earth System Governance: Theories andStrategies for Sustainability.” Given its timing fivemonths after the IDGEC Synthesis Conference in Bali inDecember 2006, the 2007 Amsterdam Conference canserve as a timely event and catalyst for the further devel-opment of a comprehensive research effort in this field.This articles draws on a longer article “Earth system

governance as a crosscutting theme of global changeresearch” forthcoming in Global Environmental Change(2007).

Frank Biermann is Professor and Head of the Depart-ment of Environmental Policy Analysis at the Institutefor Environmental Studies (IVM) of the Vrije Univer-siteit Amsterdam; [email protected]

New Direction of the Institutional Agenda

Process as well as Architecture

BY AGUS SARI

The informal nature of the Synthesis Conference,concluded with a beachside dinner, developed a strongfriendship among the participants. After dinner, theremaining members of the Planning Committee got ataste of warm waves of the Indian ocean. A sense ofaccomplishment surfaced, but excitement for the newdawn rushed. An era was concluded, a new one started.The Synthesis Conference of the Project on the Insti-

tutional Dimension of Global Environmental Change(IDGEC), a flagship project of the IHDP, was designedas the half step-back taken to make sense of what welearnt in the last decade on the role of institutions inchanging the global environment, or providing solu-tions to it. The conference also gave rise to the acknowl-edgement of the need to have a “new direction” in theglobal research on institutions.

Designing (and redesigning) the institutional agendain the post-IDGEC era is as complex as designing andredesigning any institution. If and when there is a needfor the continuation of the institutional agenda, onemay ask: should it be proactive or reactive, i.e., should itbe preventing expected problems, or should it be react-ing to existing ones? Should it be designed collectively,or should it be based on a group of volunteer thinkers?The institutional research agenda is a crossroad ofknowledge development, but should it be a core groupof thinkers – i.e., the old concept of “Scientific SteeringCommittee” – or should it be a network of thinkers indifferent fields mainstreaming the institutional agendawithin their own research agenda.The questions above are those that will determine the

architecture of the post-IDGEC institutional research

24 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

ConferencesR E P O R T S

agenda. They ask “where we are going”. What is similar-ly important are the questions of process, i.e., “how toget there”. The following several months will be crucialas this is the transitional period. They usually are devel-oped through the questions of capacity, arena, andinteraction / interplay. Capacity depends on the levelsof knowledge, agency, resilience or adaptability tochanges, and the existence of champions. In addition tohorizontal and vertical interplay, diagonal interplay maybe important as interaction across scale and across issueat the same time may be needed.I was certainly honored to be asked to lead the con-

cluding years of IDGEC, culminating into the SynthesisConference when Oran Young, one of the foundingfathers of IDGEC, was asked to head IHDP. It was agreat experience working with him as well as with therest of the SSC of IDGEC as well as of the SSC of IHDP.I am also excited to be working alongside Frank Bier-mann on the quest for the “new directions” for the insti-tutional research agenda.

Agus Sari is the current Chair of the IDGEC project; heis also Regional Director (Southeast Asia) and CountryDirector of Ecosecurities, Jakarta, Indonesia;[email protected]

IHDP Joins Efforts to Reform GlobalEnvironmental GovernanceOn the invitation of the French President Jacques

Chirac IHDP Executive Director Dr. Andreas Rechkem-mer attended the international conference Citizens ofthe Earth – for a Global Ecological Governance, whichconvened on the 2nd and 3rd February 2007 at the ElyseePalace in Paris/France.The conference was attended by about 300 ministers,

ambassadors, scientists and NGOs from more than 50countries. Andreas Rechkemmer addressed the currentcrisis of a – very fragmented – system of global environ-mental governance in his speech. He called for the inte-gration of several reform approaches under the navigat-ing leadership of a specialized United Nations Environ-ment Organization (UNEO).

IHDP Research on EnvironmentalGovernance CrucialSome of the key research findings of IHDP’s core proj-

ect “Institutional Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange (IDGEC )” were discussed on this occasion. Insti-tutions can aggravate environmental problems such as theExclusive Economic Zones that accelerated the decline ofthe world’s fish stocks. However, institutional innovationshave also played a role in mitigating environmental prob-lems, as the Clean Air Act that helped reduce sulfur emis-sions in the US, and theMontreal protocol that was crucialin reducing ozone-depleting substances.

As part of the conference six parallel working ses-sions convened and resulted in concrete recommenda-tions for action. The following main issue areas wereelaborated upon: 1) Climate Change; 2) Biodiversity; 3)Water Management; 4) Production and Consumption;5) Institutional dimensions.The Paris conference Call for Action signed by 45

countries called for a new Environment Organization(UNEO). There will be further negotiations in NewYorkat ambassador level. TheMoroccan government plans toconvene a follow-up conference.

A Closer Look at the Concept of SustainableDevelopmentAndreas Rechkemmer also gave a speech at the Inter-

national Conference on Sustainable Development TheBrundtland Report 20 Years Later which took place inLisbon on 13 February 2006. The Brundtland Commis-sion was the first to really define the concept of ‘sustain-able development’. What has happened since then, howdid the notion of sustainable development change poli-cies and project contents, and how successful has it been?These issues were discussed at the Lisbon Conference. Inconjunction with the German EU Presidency 2007, a fol-low-up conference called Sustainable Neighbourhoods– from Lisbon to Leipzig through Research will takeplace in Leipzig, Germany, from 8 to 10 May 2007.

2007Endorsed by the InternationalHuman Dimensions Programmeon GLobal Environmental Change(IHDP)

Amsterdam Conference on theHuman Dimensions of Global

Environmental Change

24 – 26 May 2007

‘Earth System Governance:Theories and Strategies for Sustainability’www.2007amsterdamconference.org/index.htm

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 25

In BriefN E W S , E V E N T S , C A L L S

In BriefThe Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimen-sions of Global Environmental Change will take placefrom 24 to 26 May 2007 in Amsterdam. This conferenceis the latest in the emerging series of European confer-ences on human dimensions research that started withthe Berlin Conferences in 2001. This year’s discussionswill address the theme Earth System Governance: Theo-ries and Strategies for Sustainability.www.2007amsterdamconference.org/index.htm

This year’sMarie Curie Summer Schools will take placein Amsterdam (on Earth System Governance), in con-junction with the Amsterdam Conference, from 24 Mayto 6 June 2007, and in Bratislava on Institutional Analy-sis of Sustainability Problems, from 18 to 29 June 2007.More information on the IHDP homepagewww.ihdp.org

The first Bonn Dialogue on Global EnvironmentalChange will take place in Bonn, Germany, on 17th April2007 under the title: Climate Change: Control, Adapt, orFlee? The dialogues are a joint venture of three Bonn-based institutions: The IHDP Secretariat, the GermanDisaster Reduction Committee (DKKV), and the UnitedNations University’s Institute for Environment andHuman Security (UNU-EHS). They are planned as aseries of events addressing sector-specific themes suchas climate, water, energy, or food in a cross-cutting man-ner. The website iswww.bonn-dialogues.org

The Munich Re Insurance Company and the UNUInstitute for Environment and Human Securityannounce their Summer Academy on Social Vulnera-bility on Megacities, 22th – 28th July 2007, near Munich,Germany.www.ehs.unu.edu orwww.munichre-foundation.org

The International Conference Towards SustainableGlobal Health will take place in Bonn from 9 to 11 May2007. The conference is co-organized by WHO, IHDP,UNU-EHS, UNEVOC, ILO, and the University of Bonn.www.gemini.de/global-health/

Core ProjectsIHDP’s core project UGEC (Urbanization and globalEnvironmental Change) will have its fourth SSC meet-ing in Tempe, Arizona, from 14 to 15 April 2006. One ofthe primary goals of the meeting is to build strong rela-tionships between the project and the academic com-munity at its host institution, Arizona State University.UGEC will also convene a workshop on strategies for

adaptation to reduce the negative impacts of climatechange and climate variability on urban areas in LatinAmerica. The workshop will take place in Morelia, Mex-ico in November 2007. More information atwww.ugec.org

Peter Marcotullio from the UNU, and a new projectassociate with UGEC, will be the main contributor to adebate organized by IT (Industrial Transformation) inAmsterdam on 7 March 2007. The debate, part of aseries called Cross-Thinking about Sustainability, willfocus on Sustainable Cities – What Europe Can Learnfrom Asia?IT also co-organizes a workshop on Politics and Gover-nance in Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions totake place in Berlin from 20 to 21 September 2007 (seetext on page 26). More information at www.ihdp-it.org

Nils-Petter Gleditsch from the GECHS project (GlobalEnvironmental Change and Human Security) will speakat a meeting on Climate-Security Connections: AnEmpirical Approach to Risk Assessment, organized bythe Environmental Change and Security Program(ECSP) at the WoodrowWilson Center (see also text onpage 26), Washington D.C., on 6 March 2007. Moreinformation atwww.gechs.org

The Arctic Coastal Zones at RiskWorkshop is co-orga-nized by LOICZ (Land-Ocean Interactions in theCoastal Zone) and will take place in Tromsoe, Norway,from 1 to 3 October 2007. The project is also preparingthe joint IMBER/LOICZ Continental Margins OpenScience Conference in Shanghai from 17 to 21 Septem-ber 2007.

ESSP ProjectsGECAFSWeb-Forum and Conference – The Earth Sys-tem Science Partnership’s joint research project on foodsystems, GECAFS, is convening an international confer-ence on Global Environmental Change and Food Systemsat the University of Oxford, UK, 1 to 3 April 2008. Theproject has also launched a web-based forum to helplink the worldwide community of researchers interestedin the interactions between food systems and globalenvironmental change. For more information, go towww.gecafs.org

GCP (Global Carbon Project) is preparing numerousmeetings and workshops, amongst which a Symposiumon Carbon Research in Africa (Kruger National Park,South Africa, 24 to 26 August), the Greenhouse 2007Conference in Sydney (2 to 5 October 2007), and the

26 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

In BriefN E W S , E V E N T S , C A L L S

5th CARBOEUROPE Integrated project meeting inPoznan, Poland (8 to 12 October 2007).www.globalcarbonproject.org/meetings.htm

GWSP (Global Water System Project) is co-organizingthe Advanced Institute on Global EnvironmentalChange and the Vulnerability of Water Resources inthe Context of the Millennium Development Goals.The intensive seminar session will take place from Sep-tember – October 2007 at UNESCO-IHE, Delft, TheNetherlands. Research phase is during 2007/2008, andthe Final Synthesis Workshop will take place October2008.Application Deadline: 10th March 2007.www.start.org/Program/advanced_institutes.html

Further EventsGlobal Environmental Change, Culture and Commu-nication – This is the title of the second LüneburgWorkshop on Environment and Sustainability Commu-nication. The workshop will take place at the Universityof Lüneburg, Germany, from 21 to 22 June 2007. Howdo societies communicate the complex phenomena ofglobal environmental changes, and how can intendedenvironmental, risk and sustainability communicationstimulate social change. The notion of socio-culturalglobalization plays a central role in this research: inter-and transnational processes of communication, globalconsumer goods, media images of risk discourses, aswell as lifestyles, societal practices and identity con-structions. Deadline for abstracts is 15 April 2007. Formore information, please contact Harald Heinrichs [email protected], or Susi Moser [email protected].

The Department of Technology and Sustainable Devel-opment (TSD) of the University of Twente, the Nether-lands, is organizing a course for the public and privatesector involved in energy conservation and environ-mental protection in industries. The internationalcourse takes place at the university of Twente from 29October to 30 November 2007 and is called: EnergyManagement and Cleaner Production in Small andMedium Scale Industries. Further information andapplication details can be found atwww.utwente.nl/cstm/tsd/news

Politics and Governance in Sustainable Socio-Techni-cal Transitions – This international workshop on thegovernance of socio-technical transitions to radicallymore sustainable production and consumption systemswill take place from 20 to 21 September 2007 in Berlin.The three core themes of governances are 1) Agency &Power: Political Contexts over System Innovations, 2)Participation & Legitimacy: Cognitive and Ethical Ori-

entation for System Innovations, and 3) Institutions &Change: Conditions of Political Reform for SystemInnovations. For more information, please contact Jan-Peter Voss at [email protected], Adrian Smith [email protected], or John Grin at [email protected]

The Inter-American Institute for Global ChangeResearch (IAI) announces a small grant programmefor human dimensions research (SGP-HD). This pro-gramme will fund interdisciplinary Global Environ-mental Change research with emphasis on complex,dynamic coupled human-biophysical systems in orderto develop strong human dimensions research in con-junction with existing projects of the collaborative net-work.www.iai.int

Discussion List on Human Dimensions – The HumanDimensions of Global Environmental Change(HDGEC) discussion list, jointly sponsored by IHDPand CIESIN (Center for International Earth ScienceInformation Network), serves as a forum for theexchange of information and opinions on the humandimensions of global environmental change. To sub-scribe, send an email to [email protected] “subscribe hdgec” in the message body, or followinstructions on the web atlistserver.ciesin.columbia.edu/hdgec.html

The world faces huge problems such as populationgrowth, water scarcity, degraded ecosystems, forcedmigration, resource depletion, or pandemic disease.Since 1994, the Environmental Change and SecurityProgram (ECSP) at the Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter for Scholars has explored the connections amongthese major challenges and their links to conflict,human insecurity, and foreign policy. Through numer-ous publications, meetings, and events, ECSP promotesdialogue about the environmental, health, and popula-tion dynamics that affect both developing and devel-oped nations. Its latest FOCUS newsletter is called“Lessons from the First Generation of Integrated Popu-lation, Health, and Environment Projects”. For moreinformation, go to www.wilsoncenter.org, and click on‘Programs’ in the top menu bar (see also project infor-mation on GECHS above).

START/PACOM Call for Proposals – Small ResearchGrants for African Global Change Scientists. Awards aremade to scientists based at African institutions forresearch projects related to: 1) Climate Variability andClimate Change in Africa; 2) Impacts/Adaptations/ Vul-nerability to Global Change; 3) Land Use and EcosystemChange; 4) Bio-geochemical Fluxes; and 5) Biodiversity.www.start.org/Program/African_sm_grants.html

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7 27

PublicationsN E W B O O K S / J O U R N A L S

Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural ResourcesManagementTheory and Practiceedited by Susanne Stoll-Kleemann and Martin WelpIn Stakeholder Dialogues

in Natural Resources Man-agement an integrative theo-retical framework is outlinedand examples of stakeholderdialogues in natural resourcesmanagement in three areas –science, policy and manage-ment – are examined. Currentpractice has generally been toanalyse these separately. Theauthors, in contrast, feel thethree areas should be closely interrelated and thereforehave attempted to integrate them in the work by usingcase studies from Ecuador, Uganda, Finland and Ger-many as examples.Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2006, 386 pages, ISBN 10

3-540-36916-3; ISBN 13 978-3-540-36916-5

The Journal of Industrial Ecology, a peer-reviewedinternational quarterly published by MIT Press, hasrecently published a special issue on Priorities for Envi-ronmental Product Policy.The issue provides rigorous and comprehensive

insight into the life-cycle impacts of consumption –what we buy and what we use – on the environment.The articles identify high-impact product categories atthe level of city (Cardiff), country (Germany, Belgium,Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands), andcontinent (the European Union).Despite the immense differences in approaches, all

studies derive the same major priorities. The followingactivities and product groups cause 70 to 80% of thetotal environmental impacts in society:Mobility: automobile and air transport;

Food: meat and dairy, followed by other types offood; andThe home, and related energy use: buildings, andheating-, cooling-, and other energy using appliances.

Important reductions in environmental impacts thuscan be reached by policies that target this limited groupof product categories.For more information on this special issue go to:

www.mitpressjournals.org/page/special_103/jie

Managing Coastal Vulnerabilityedited by Loraine McFadden, Robert J. Nicholls, EdmundPenning-RowsellLimited information currently exists as to how vulner-

ability can be actively reduced to promote the sustainabledevelopment and use of the coastal zone. This volumeexplicitly addresses this question, discussing how vulnera-bility can be managed to ensure sustainable coastalfutures.The book brings together a wide range of interna-

tional experts to share their experience on the challengesand opportunities for managing vulnerable coasts. Thechapters explore coastal behaviour across a range of spa-tial and temporal scales, physical coastal types andsocio-economic settings. They address questions such asthe purpose of coastal areas, how they function, and thedynamics of the balance between potential impacts andthe effects of adaptation to climate and human-inducedforcing. Building on the approaches presented withinthis book, cross-cutting lessons for vulnerability reduc-tion in coastal environments and communities aredeveloped, as well as suggestions for future research.Elsevier, Amsterdam Nov. 2006, Paperback 282pp.,

EUR 72,95 ; ISBN-13: 978-0-08-044703-2

IHDP Update is published by the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Enviromental Change (IHDP),

Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany, V.i.S.d.P.: Ula Löw

The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change

and its research community.

ISSN 1727-155X

UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat,Walter-Flex-Strasse 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.

EDITOR: Ula Löw, IHDP; [email protected]

LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn+Berlin, Germany

UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATEmay be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any

reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat. This newsletter is produced using funds by the German Federal Ministry of Education and

Research (BMBF) and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF).

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP or its sponsoring organizations.

Imprint

For our Meetings Calendar, please access

our website www.ihdp. org, and click on

'What's New', then 'Events Calendar'

AddressesCO N TA C T A D D R E S S E S

IHDP SECRETARIAT

IHDP Secretariat:Andreas Rechkemmer,Executive DirectorWalter-Flex-Strasse 353113 Bonn, GermanyPhone: +49-228-739050Fax: [email protected]

IHDP CORE PROJECTS

GECHSGlobal Environmental Changeand Human Securityc/o Lynn Rosentrater,Executive OfficerGECHS International Project OfficeDepartment of Sociology andHuman GeographyUniversity of Oslo, [email protected]

GLPGlobal Land Projectc/o Tobias Langanke, Executive OfficerInstitute of Geography, University ofCopenhagen, [email protected]

IDGECInstitutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Changec/o Heike Schröder, Executive OfficerIDGEC International Project Office,Bren School of Env. Science andManagement, University of Californiaat Santa Barbara, CA, [email protected]://fiesta.bren.edu/~idgec/

ITIndustrial Transformationc/o Anna J.Wieczorek,Executive OfficerIT International Project OfficeInstitute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of AsterdamThe [email protected]

LOICZLand-Ocean Interactions in theCoastal Zonec/o Hartwig Kremer,Excecutive Officer,Institute for Coastal Research GKSSGeesthacht, [email protected]

UGECUrbanization and GlobalEnvironmental Changec/oMichail Fragkias, Executive Officer

Arizona State University, Tempe,

AZ, [email protected]

JOINT ESSP PROJECTS

GECAFSGlobal Environmental Changeand Food Systemsc/o John Ingram, Executive OfficerGECAFS International ProjectOffice, Environmental ChangeInstitute, Oxford University,Oxford, [email protected]

GCPGlobal Carbon Projectc/o Pep CanadellExecutive OfficerGCP International ProjectOffice, CSIROCanberra, [email protected]

Tsukuba Officec/o Shobhakar DhakalNational Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, Tsukuba, [email protected]

GWSPGlobalWater Systems Projectc/o Lydia Dümenil Gates,Executive OfficerInternational Project Office GWSPCenter for Development Research,University of Bonn, [email protected]

IHDP SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE (SC)

ChairOran R.YoungBren School of EnvironmentalScience and ManagementUniversity of California atSanta BarbaraSanta Barbara, CA, [email protected]

Vice ChairsRoberto GuimarãesFundacao Getullio VargasRio de Janeiro, [email protected]

Geoffrey DabelkoEnvironmental Change and SecurityProgram (ECSP)WoodrowWilson InternationalCenter for Scholars,WashingtonD.C., [email protected]

HebeVessuriDepartment of Science Studies,Instituto Venezolano deInvestigaciones Cientificas, Caracas,[email protected]

Katrina BrownSchool of Development StudiesUniversity of East Anglia,Norwich, [email protected]

Carl FolkeCentre for Research on NaturalResources and the Environment(CNM)CNM, Stockholm UniversityStockholm, [email protected]

Gernot KlepperKiel Institute of World EconomicsKiel, [email protected]

Tatiana Kluvankova-OravskaInstitute for ForecastingSlovak Academy of SciencesBratislava, Slovak [email protected]

Sander van der LeeuwDepartment of Anthropology,Arizona State University, Tempe,AZ, [email protected]

Leena SrivastavaExecutive Director, The Energy andResources Institute, New Delhi, [email protected]

Coleen HeatherVogelDept. of Geography & Env. StudiesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg, South [email protected]

Ernst Ulrich vonWeizsäckerDean, Bren School of EnvironmentalScience and Management, Universityof California at Santa Barbara, [email protected]

EX OFFICIOMEMBERS IHDPSCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

ICSUThomas RosswallExecutive Director ICSUParis, [email protected]

ISSCLourdes ArizpeUniversidad Nacional Autónomade México (UNAM)Cuernavaca, [email protected]

DIVERSITASMichel LoreauÉcole Normale SuperieureLaboratoire d'ÉcologieParis, [email protected]

IGBPCarlos NobreCentro de Previsao de Tempo eEstudos Climaticos - CPTECINPE - Instituto Nacional dePesquisas Espaciais, Brazilwww.igbp.kva.se

➤ START (alternating)Roland FuchsSTART Secretariat,WashingtonD.C., [email protected]

➤ WCRPJohn ChurchAntarctic CRC andCSIRO Marine ResearchHobart, Tas., [email protected]

➤ GECHSKaren O’BrienInstitute for Sociology &Human GeographyUniversity of Oslo, [email protected]

➤ IDGECAgus P. SariYayasan Pelangi IndonesiaPejompongan, [email protected]

ITFrans BerkhoutDirector, Institute forEnvironmental Studies (IVM),Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,The [email protected]

LOICZJosef PacynaCenter for Ecological EconomicsNorwegian Institute for Air ResearchKjeller, [email protected]

UGECKaren SetoDept. of Geological &Environmental SciencesStanford University, [email protected]

GLPAnette ReenbergInstitute of GeographyUniversity of Copenhagen,[email protected]

28 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 . 2 0 0 7

www.ipy.org

7177

Documents

e o n g

t i o n

e n s i o n s p r o

h d p n e w s

updateihdpn e w s

idgec project

idgec framework

years of research