Actions aimed at developing adaptive capacities at the individual or local level may have negative impacts on mitigation. Responses to climate problems will create new problems in new situations. Flexible, context- based, and multi-level adaptive processes, tools and methods are needed. We need to go beyond framing policy-making from a problem-solution perspective to looking at it as embedded in social-ecological systems processes and feedbacks.
To appraise both climate risks and opportunities. To deal with and integrate mitigation and adaptation. To support the making of robust climate strategies at different governance levels. To deal with synergies and trade-offs between multiple policy domains, sectors and scales. A new global approach to climate appraisal and action is needed
In a way that… Prevents problem shifting from one policy domain to another. Supports fast transformations in individual practices and institutions. Contributes to avoiding total socioecological system breakdown.
Such an approach... Is VERY urgent. Is still missing. Requires new partnerships, new framings, new mindsets and new spaces for interaction between science, policy making and the public. Must go beyond representation (e.g. of impacts and trends) and support transformation. Is possible, not impossible.
Integrated Climate Governance Background research projects: MATISSE –Tools and Methods for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA). On tools and methods to support transformative sustainability assessments from transition- based perspective. www.matisse-project.net ADAM – Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Supporting EU climate Policy. On requirements for innovative climate appraisals. www.adamproject.eu IRG-project. Integrated Risk Governance. On large scale risks that exceed current coping capacities. www.irg-project.org
Is both: A heuristic device to analyse and identify existing gaps and potentialities in current practices related to climate and sustainability appraisals. A normative integrative concept aimed at providing potential for innovation in climate and sustainability research, policy practice and communication. Integrated Climate Governance Knowledge coordination and transformation
Can be defined as an approach which: Deals both with adaptation and mitigation. Combines a plurality of legitimate but divergent interest and sources of knowledge. Conceives climate change from a multi- scale, multi-level, multi-domain and transition-oriented perspective to support sustainable development. Integrated Climate Governance
With the explicit goals of: Assessing both climate risks and opportunities. Designing and implementing transformative policy instruments and targets. Supporting communication, agent engagement and transformation, and developing context- based climate capacities in a social learning mode. Integrated Climate Governance
The main sources for social learning and innovation… Do not derive from the practices that occur within each of these three domains but from the interactions between them –e.g. through new institutions. Such interactions should be held a different levels and deal with critical questions such as equity in global resource use and pollution.
From a transition and social-ecological systems perspective, the conceptual distinction between economic, social and economic domains is rather useless to adequately understand the current sustainability challenges in a relational, systemic and integrated manner. Ecological Economic Social ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? On dualistic languages, power and cultural frameworks...
Ecoefficiency practices alone do not challenge the current power regimes but tend to reinforce them – and are insufficient to deal with climate change. To avoid rebound effects and meet the climate challenge, ecoefficiency and sufficiency (limits) needs to be combined at different levels of governance: SUSTAINABILITY = ECOEFFICIENY + SUFFICIENCY On power and choices of sustainability criteria…
Should not only focus on problem representation but support agent and institutional transformation. Should not only ask what is the problem? but most importantly who is the problem? Urgently need to support communication and help develop a new integrative non-dualistic language for transformative narratives and capacities. New tools and methods for ICG
- Structures and rules (S) - Energy and resources (E) - Information and knowledge systems (I) - Accumulated change (C) Zi = system size (limits) New tools and methods for ICG should assess both stocks AND flows of social-ecological systems states and dynamics
Requirements and implications for ICG at regional and local level
I) Integrated Climate Governance demands above all, institutional innovation, not just more tools and methods: 1. More assessment tools, more information and communication and more policy measures is not enough if these still follow current BaU framings. 2. New institutions are needed to enhance, integrate and coordinate interaction and REFRAME current practices, means and goals within and between science, policy and the public.
II) To meet the challenges of ICG a more complex institutional landscape is needed which 1. Promotes greater engagement of local and regional actors. 2. Facilitates coordination of different levels of action. 3. Finds synergies and overcomes trade-offs and contradictions between mitigation and adaptation. 4. Takes into account the diversity of social- ecological context conditions.
III) Achieving climate goals and capacities may constitute one of the best ways to achieve sustainable development and avoid relativism: 1. Excessive social constructivism is a problem in sustainable development policies. 2. Lack of legitimate institutions and appraisal processes for knowledge integration prevents decisive action in urgent matters related to sustainability -and reinforce existing power regimes. 3. Climate change policy may provide the best change for setting transformative appraisal targets at different levels of action.
IV) ICG policy instruments need to incorporate robust knowledge about social-ecological systems: 1. Knowledge about the state and quality of existing stocks and flows of social-ecological systems resources needs to be incorporated in the making of policy measures. 2. Policy instruments should be devised to address multiple constraints to support long-term transition goals in multiple domains. 3. Should support long-term transformative options and goals at individual and institutional levels.
The goals and means of ICG will never be predetermined, but will emerge as a result of social learning.
Conclusions ICG is possible –not impossible. Research and practice in ICG is urgent. Climate change perhaps offers one of the best chances to reframe international relations, and in Europe, to ensure sustainable development in the long term. Such reframing entails moving away from the present market-based global competition towards a more sustainable development / climate global cooperation.