1. Center for Social and Environmental System Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan 2. Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management in Southeast Asia and Pacific (CCROM-SEAP), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Bogor, Indonesia
The Paris Agreement, which entered into effect in 2016, emphasizes a definite timeline for communicating and maintaining successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that it plans to achieve in addressing climate change. This calls for the development of a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system and a Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT). Though such actions are universally accepted by the Parties to the Paris Agreement, earlier studies have shown that there remain technological, social, political and financial constrains which will affect the development and deployment of such a system. In this paper, using a case study on MRV implementation in Bogor City in Indonesia, how the above-mentioned challenges can be overcome is outlined through a technological and policy innovation process where scientists and technologists (collectively referred as expert networks) can join hands with local governments and national policy makers in designing, development and implementation of an MRV system that meets the local, national and global requirements. Through the case study it is further observed that expert networks can act as interactive knowledge generators and policy interlocutors in bridging technology with policy. To be specific, first, a brief history of the international context of MRV and CBIT is outlined. Next, the theoretical underpinning of the study is contextualized within the existing theories related to public policy and international relations. Finally, the case study is outlined and investigated where the engagement of an expert-network and policy makers in the design, development and implementation of an MRV tool is showcased.
The Bali Action Plan (COP 13) introduced the concepts of Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable (MRV) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) into the global negotiations
MRV and NAMA were introduced
COP 16, Cancun
The Cancun agreements clearly recognize a need for a work program to clarify and operationalize issues like design of the registry, international rules on MRV and improved greenhouse gas emissions reports from non-Annex I parties
Consensus in the development of an MRV
COP 17, Durban
UNFCCC decided to launch a process to develop a protocol, another, legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties
Legal process toward development of an MRV
COP 18, Doha
General guidelines for domestic measurement, reporting and verification of domestically supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties
Guidelines for MRV implementation
COP 19, Warsaw
Parties were invited to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) and to communicate them well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so), in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended nationally determined contributions
The data from national MRV’s and Models to set standards for INDC by national governments
COP 20, Lima
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) will form the foundation for climate action post 2020 when the new agreement is set to come into effect
INDC will form the foundation for post 2020 climate action
COP 21, Paris
Paris Agreement (Paragraph 84) decided to establish a Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) to build institutional and technical capacity (both pre- and post-2020”) primarily to support developing country Parties, upon request, in meeting enhanced transparency requirements as defined in Article 13 of the Agreement in a timely manner
The objective of CBIT is to (a) strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities (b) provide relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Agreement (c) assist in the improvement of transparency over time
Tab.1
Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
Fig.7
1
UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 2016–04–10,
2
UNFCCC. Handbook on Measurement, Reporting and Verification for developing country Parties. 2014,
3
Bellassen V, Stephan N, Afriat M, Alberola E, Barker A, Chang J P, Chiquet C, Cochran I, Deheza M, Dimopoulos C, Foucherot C, Jacquier G, Morel R, Robinson R, Shishlov I. Monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions in the climate economy. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(4): 319–328 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2544
4
Baker D J, Richards G, Grainger A, Gonzalez P, Brown S, DeFries R, Held A, Kellndorfer J, Ndunda P, Ojima D, Skrovseth P E, Souza C Jr, Stolle F. Achieving forest carbon information with higher certainty: a five-part plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 2010, 13(3): 249–260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.004
5
GEF. Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT). 2016–03–11,
Kunseler E M, Tuinstra W. Navigating the authority paradox: practising objectivity in environmental expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 67: 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.001
8
Rietig K. ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences, 2014, 47(2): 141–160 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8
9
Stoutenborough J W, Bromley-Trujillo R, Vedlitz A. How to win friends and influence people: climate scientists’ perspectives on their relationship with and influence on government officials. Journal of Public Policy, 2015, 35(2): 269–296 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X15000112
Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A E, Atmadja S, Thu Thuy P, Schofield L. Multiple levels and multiple challenges for measurement, reporting and verification of REDD+. International Journal of the Commons, 2013, 7(2): 344–366 https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.372
12
Lee T M, Markowitz E M, Howe P D, Ko C Y, Leiserowitz A A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(11): 1014–1020 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
13
Widerberg O, Pattberg P. International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance: raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC? Global Policy, 2015, 6(1): 45–56 https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12184
14
Stavins R. A challenge for the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. 2015–01–14,
15
Miles E L, Snover A K, Whitely Binder L C, Sarachik E S, Mote P W, Mantua N. An approach to designing a national climate service. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2006, 103(52): 19616–19623 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609090103
pmid: 17158218
16
Hoppe R, Wesselink A, Cairns R. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2013, 4(4): 283–300 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.225
17
Szarka J. From Climate advocacy to public engagement: an exploration of the roles of environmental non-governmental organisations. Climate (Basel), 2013, 1(1): 12–27 https://doi.org/10.3390/cli1010012
18
Duwe M. The climate action network: a glance behind the curtains of a transnational NGO network. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 2001, 10(2): 177–189 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00274
19
Scholz V. How GIZ supports partner countries in the preparation of their INDCs. 2016–05–25,
20
Bulkeley H, Andonova L B, Betsill M M, Compagnon D, Hale T. Theoretical perspectives on transnational governance. In: Transnational Climate Change Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 38–60
21
Ranson M, Stavins R N. Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience. Climate Policy, 2016, 16(3): 284–300 https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.997658
22
Bodansky D M, Hoedl S A, Metcalf G E, Stavins R N. Facilitating linkage of climate policies through the Paris outcome. Climate Policy, 2016, 16(8): 956–972 https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1069175
23
Sabatier P A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 1988, 21(2–3): 129–168 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406
24
Weible C M, Pattison A, Sabatier P A. Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 2010, 13(6): 522–534 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.005
25
Star S L, Ruhleder K. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 1996, 7(1): 111–134 https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111
26
Star S L, Griesemer J R. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19(3): 387–420 https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
27
Gieryn T F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48(6): 781–795 https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
28
Hoppe R. Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, 2009, 6(3–4): 235–263 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-008-0053-3
pmid: 19655051
29
Slinger J H, Hilders M, Juizo D. The practice of transboundary decision making on the incomati river: elucidating underlying factors and their implications for institutional design. Ecology and Society, 2010, 15(1): 1 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03070-150101
30
Djalante R, Thomalla F, Sinapoy M, Carnegie M. Building resilience to natural hazards in Indonesia: progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards, 2012, 62(3): 779–803 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0106-8
31
Lewis B D. Urbanization and economic growth in Indonesia: good news, bad news and (possible) local government mitigation. Regional Studies, 2014, 48(1): 192–207 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.748980
32
Government_of_Indonesia. Presidential Decree of the President of Republic of Indonesia.. 2011,
33
Stone D. Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 2004, 11(3): 545–566 https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291
34
Morizane J, Enoki T, Hase N, Setiawan B. Government policies and institutions for climate change mitigation and its monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. In: Kaneko S, Kawanishi M. eds. Climate Change Policies and Challenges in Indonesia. Tokyo: Springer Japan, 2016, 27–54
35
Sugiarto B A. Developing innovative MRV system to support the realization of eco/green campus IPB. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015,
36
Boer R. Developing innovative MRV system to support the realization of eco/green campus IPB. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015
37
Green_Television (Producer). Forum on Eco City Bogor through Green Innovation. 2015–10–14,
38
Fujita T. International collaborative research for innovative modelling and monitoring for low carbon society and eco-cities in Indonesia’. In: The 7th International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2015), Yokohama, Japan, 2015
