|
To download the entire document in Microsoft Word format (615K),
click here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDGEC Scientific Planning
Committee
Preface
Summary
Introduction and Welcome
Session I:
Introduction to the IDGEC and CMRA
Theme 1: Institutional Issues Related
to the Administering the Current Climate Regime
-Session 2: Internation and
National Implications of the Kyoto Mechanisms
-Session 3: Climate Regimes
and Sustainable Development
Theme
II: The (Re)Design of the Climate Regime Through 2005 and Beyond
Session
4: Compliance and Long Term Implementation
Session
5: Adjustment and Learning Processes in the Climate Change Regime
Session
6: Linkages and Organizational Issues
Conclusions
Appendix A: IDGEC
Carbon Management Research Activity Scoping Report
Appendix B: List of Participants
Appendix C: International Climate
Change Regime Simulation Proposal
|
PREFACE
This document summarizes the proceedings and reports the findings
of a planning meeting held in Tokyo on 29 and 30 May 2000 to provide
guidance for the Carbon Management Research Activity (CMRA), a flagship
activity of the international research program on the Institutional
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC). Attended by some
30 individuals, representing a mix of people from the research and
policy communities, the principal objective of the meeting was to
identify researchable topics relating to carbon management that
constitute priority concerns for the members of both communities.
Among the many themes identified in this connection, two emerged
as matters of particular interest to both communities: (1) the establishment
and refinement of the rules of the game needed to operate the Kyoto
Mechanisms and especially the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
successfully and (2) the development of compliance mechanisms capable
of inducing both states and other key actors to adjust their behavior
to meet the requirements of the existing climate change regime or
any revised regime dealing with climate change that arises during
the foreseeable future. The CMRA will explore research opportunities
pertaining to these themes over the next several years.
Many individuals contributed to making the Tokyo meeting a success.
Two deserve special recognition. Granville Sewell, who is an IDGEC
Research Fellow, took the lead both in assembling an excellent mix
of participants and in preparing this report. Yoshiki Yamagata,
who is a member of the IDGEC Scientific Steering Committee, handled
all the arrangements for the meeting in Tokyo. His organization,
the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), not only
took care of all the organizational aspects of the meeting in a
thoroughly professional manner, but also provided much appreciated
material support. The IDGEC International Project Office at Dartmouth
College in the United States and the Secretariat of the International
Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP)
in Bonn also assisted in issuing invitations and otherwise dealing
with logistical issues relating to the meeting. To all those who
played a role in making the Tokyo meeting a success, we are deeply
grateful.
Oran R. Young
Chair
IDGEC Scientific Steering Committee
Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental
Change
Carbon Management Research Activity
Initial Planning Meeting
May 29-30, 2000
Tokyo, Japan
Summary
The initial planning meeting of the Institutional Dimensions of
Global Environmental Change (IDGEC)'s Carbon Management Research
Activity (CMRA) was held on May 29-30 in Tokyo, Japan. The Carbon
Management Research Activity (CMRA) is a long-term investigation
into the range of institutional issues associated with the emerging
climate regime. As a flagship activity of the International Human
Dimensions Program's (IHDP) long-term project on the Institutional
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), the objective
of this effort is to further our understanding of the critical near-
and long-term institutional issues facing the international community
as it develops a global climate change regime. The CMRA Scoping
Report (Appendix A) describes the activity in greater detail.
The planning meeting was attended by over thirty researchers from
twelve countries and a range of disciplines, and was sponsored by
the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, and the
International Human Dimensions Program. A list of the meeting participants
is provided in Appendix B.
The purpose of the planning meeting was to move the research activity
from its initial scoping phase into the research phase. In doing
so, it had several objectives. The first objective was to stimulate
a discussion among the participants about the institutional issues
and research questions raised by the Scoping Report and to identify
those that are of particular concern to policy makers and researchers.
The meeting's second objective was to elaborate on the most important
of these research questions and identify, in concrete terms, an
initial set of research projects that could be undertaken under
the CMRA that would begin to resolve them. Finally, the SSC wanted
to elicit from the participants their ideas as to how best to develop
the linkages and network of researchers necessary to move the activity
forward.
The first day of the Planning Meeting was devoted to the introduction
of the CMRA and a general discussion of the institutional issues
and research questions raised in the CMRA Scoping Report. During
the opening session, following welcomes by Jill Jaeger, Director
of the International Human Dimensions Program, and Hironori Hamanaka,
Director-General of the Japan Environment Agency's Global Environment
Department, Oran Young, the Chairman of the IDGEC Scientific Planning
Committee, provided a brief overview of the IDGEC, the IDGEC Flagship
Research Activities, and the goals of the meeting. Granville Sewell
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology then introduced the
CMRA Scoping Report and its two priority research "themes."
These themes are the set of research questions associated with climate
change institutions that the SSC has identified as being important
to both policy makers and researchers that serve as focal points
for CMRA research projects.
The remainder of the day's sessions was devoted to a discussion
of the range of issues associated with these research themes. In
addition to the discussion provided in the Scoping Report, a number
of participants made presentations related to the issues and questions
raised in each theme.
Because the international community is particularly concerned with
the nearer-term issues associated with implementing the terms of
the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, the first of the two CMRA themes
explores the institutional issues related to the administration
of the climate regime in its present form. Atiq Rahman of the Bangladesh
Centre for Advanced Studies, Naoki Matsuo of the Institute for Global
Environmental Studies (IGES), and Joyeeta Gupta of the Institute
for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, made presentations
related to these issues.
The CMRA's second theme focuses on longer-term issues associated
with the regime's evolution and adjustment over time, as the ability
to learn from national experiences in its implementation and adapt
to changes in technology, scientific understanding, and global socioeconomic
conditions is crucial to the regime's long-term effectiveness. Jan
Linehan of New York University Law School, Jan Bandsma of the Foundation
Joint Implementation Network, Richard Morganstern of Resources for
the Future, and Adil Najam of Boston University made presentations
related to these issues.
During the second day of the meeting, two breakout sessions were
held to discuss these questions in greater detail and to suggest
some initial CMRA research projects that might begin to resolve
them. Participants in these sessions identified a substantial list
of important topics and questions related to the two CMRA Themes
that are particularly ripe for investigation. No effort was made
to reach specific conclusions with regard to these research themes.
Instead, much of the discussion focused on elaborating on the range
of institutional questions requiring research, the relative importance
for research into these questions, and the concerns of the policy
community with regard to this research.
The final session of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of
the organizational issues related to the conduct of CMRA research
projects. To initiate this discussion, Kiliparti Ramakrishna of
the Woods Hole Research Center, Jill Jaeger of the International
Human Dimensions Program, and Pep Canadell of the Global Change
and Terrestrial Ecosystems International Program Office made presentations
regarding the needs and constraints of the policy community and
the FCCC secretariat, the social science research community, and
the natural science research community, respectively. The SSC has
anticipated, and the meeting participants reiterated, that CMRA
research should be initiated and conducted through a network of
researchers and research institutions with expertise in fields relevant
to the institutional questions being examined. Collaboration should
also be pursued with projects conducted other auspices, including
activities being undertaken by other programs of the International
Human Dimensions Program (IDHP) and policy research efforts being
undertaken by the FCCC Secretariat, other UN and intergovernmental
organizations, non-profit organizations, industry associations,
and research organizations.
- While the participants did not make an effort to reach specific
conclusions regarding the range of issues and topics discussed
at the meeting, a general consensus did emerge regarding a number
of issues:
- There was general agreement among the participants that a coordinated
research program into the range of institutional issues associated
with the climate regime is timely and of tremendous interest to
both researchers and policy makers.
- Two questions that emerged as being particularly important
are: (1) the relationship between the CDM rules and incentives
for participation in it, and (2) the effectiveness of the various
options being consider in the compliance mechanism.
- The meeting participants recognized that an expanded network
of researchers was necessary to move the activity forward, and
that additional efforts were necessary to draw researchers from
such important regions such as Africa and Latin America that were
not represented at this first planning meeting.
- Participants expressed interest in participating in a on-going
dialogue with the policy community on institutional questions
associated with the climate regime, and expressed interest in
exploring possibilities for holding a series of discussions with
participants in the meetings of Conference of the Parties and
its subsidiary bodies.
- Meeting participants and the CMRA Steering Committee would
welcome recommendations and nominations from the FCCC Parties
of other researchers who might become involved in this effort.
As a next step, participants agreed that an electronic discussion
group should be developed to further refine the list of research
questions and project proposals. Details on this discussion network
will be available on the IDGEC website in the near future. In the
meantime, the CMRA Steering Committee is exploring options for securing
funding and initiating specific research projects regarding the
two research questions identified as being particularly important
in the near term.
This report presents the presentations made by workshop participants
and outlines the important institutional research questions that
they believe are of interest to both researchers and policy makers.
The individuals whose presentations are included in this report
were asked to present their own views on the issue or set of issues
at hand to provide context for a discussion of critical research
questions. The purpose of this report, however, is not to make conclusions,
but simply put forth these critical questions in order to provide
a starting point for future research. The questions described in
this report supplement and elaborate on the core research questions
put forth in the CMRA Scoping Report. Many of the questions outlined
in it are expected to become, in one form or another, the nucleus
one or more specific research projects that could be moved forward
under the CMRA, and the report itself, together with the Scoping
Report, is intended to be a point of reference for the further development
of the CMRA.
|
Preface
Summary
|