/7174

Special Editiion - 2008

www.ihdp.org

ISSN 1727-155X

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

1

Table of Contents IHDP Extra

Introduction

3

International Human Dimensions Workshops in New Delhi Maarit Thiem

Articles

6

The Human Dimensions of Health and Global Environmental Change, Global Change & Urban Health

Thomas Krafft and Mark W. Rosenberg

8

Transitions to Sustainability Through Systems Innovation

Frans Berkhout

10

Karen O'Brien, Linda Sygna and Kirsten Ulsrud

11

Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change

Ilan Chabay

15

From Research to Social Change: The Case of Ecosystem Services - II

18

p. 8

From Research to Social Change: The Case of Ecosystem Services

p. 6

p. 18

Kanchan Chopra

Adaptive Water Management

Matthew Hare

p. 10

Imprint This is an extra edition of the IHDP Update.

IHDP Update is published by the Secretariat of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, United Nations Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, D-53113 Bonn, Germany The IHDP Update magazine features the activities of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and its research community.

ISSN 1727-155X

Executive Editor: Gabriela Litre Layout: Carolyn Louise Smith IHDP Update is published triannually. Sections of the Update may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat. This magazine is published using funds by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the United States National Science Foundation.

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP nor those of its sponsoring organizations.

Cover photo: The streets of Delhi, by Controvento, flickr.com

Editor-in-Chief: Andreas Rechkemmer (V.i.s.d.P.)

2

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

Intorduction: The IHDW

Introduction

International Human Dimensions Workshops in New Dehli Maarit Thiem

Through the application of the well known brand, International Human Dimensions Workshops or IHDW, to the series of capacity building workshops set to take place this October in New Delhi, India, IHDP has illustrated the importance of systemised trainings in the overall Capacity Development Strategy, as laid out in the IHDP Strategic Plan 2007 – 2015. The training seminars offer a unique opportunity for the promotion of young scientists from all regions of the world, particularly those from developing and emerging economies, to interact and exchange information on various aspects of global change. For the first time, IHDP is organising a train-the-trainers seminar on adaptive water management. By reaching out not only to the younger generation, but also to university professors other disseminators of knowledge, IHDP is increasing its efforts to diversify its capacity building activities.

The IHDWs are one of IHDP’s flagship activities, with nearly 200 young scientists having been trained in the biennial courses since 1998 on various issues of human dimensions research. These capacity building activities focus on methodological issues related to research questions on the human dimensions of global environmental change, with topics linked both to IHDP core projects and Earth System Science projects. Not only do these seminars make an effort to develop concrete skills and provide state-of-the-art knowledge about the topics in question, but they also strive to enhance collaboration and networking between the young researchers and the broader global environmental change research community.

This year, IHDP is organising five parallel training

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

seminars taking place from 11 to 16 October, 2008 on research topics that have been identified some of the most prominent research areas in human dimensions research. A range of different partner organisations as well as host institutions will be involved in this exciting endeavour, which will receive funding from APN, IAI, NSF, START/PACOM, GWSP and UNW-DPC, among others.

A Brief Introduction to the Seminars The Human Dimension of Health and Global Environmental Change: Global Change and Urban Health Headed by: The Global Environmental Change and

Human Health Project (GECHH) Convened by: Thomas Krafft, Geomed Research Forsch ungsgesellschaft, Bad Honnef, Germany

Mark Rosenberg, Queens University,

Ontario, Canada

Manuel Cesario, University of Franca,

Sao Paulo, Brazil Hosted by: Jawaharlal University JNU, School of Envi ronmental Studies

Focusing on the issue of urban health, this seminar will provide a comprehensive overview on the complex field of global change and health. The seminar aims to identify and discuss efficient and sustainable inter-sectoral adaptation pathways for urban health challenges resulting from global change.

3

Transitions to Sustainability through System Innovation Headed by: The IHDP-IT (Industrial Transformation)

project Convened by: Anna Wieczorek, Vrije Universiteit IVM,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Frans Berkhout, Vrije Universiteit IVM,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands Hosted by: Jawaharlal University JNU, School of

International Studies

This workshop will explore alternative development pathways that have a significantly lower burden on the environment. In particular, it will deal with the ways in which unsustainable but powerful, well established and stable socio-technical systems that fulfill human needs such as food, energy supply, mobility and health care can be replaced by alternative systems with considerably lower environmental footprints over the longer term. The workshop will build upon recent insights from research on transitions and system innovations, which can roughly be divided into (i) our increasing understanding of transitions to sustainability and (ii) using this knowledge to making policy suggestions. The

4

aim of this workshop will therefore be to give participants practical experience in applying theoretical and analytical tools to better understand the way in which transitions unfold and to use this knowledge to develop policies that help bring about sustainability under various geographical and economic conditions.

Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change Headed by: TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute),

India

IHDP-GECHS (Global Environmental

Change and Human Security) project Convened by: Karen O’Brien, University of Oslo, Norway

Linda Sygna, University of Oslo, Norway Hosted by: Jawaharlal University JNU, School of Envi ronmental Studies

This training seminar will focus on the concept of sustainable adaptation to climate change as a means of enhancing human security. Participants will be challenged to think about responses to climate change from a broad perspective, recognising that adaptation measures can, at the same time, be

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

effective in reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and poverty. The concept of sustainable adaptation will be discussed from this perspective, with an emphasis on the relationship between adaptation and development, including how poverty reduction strategies can have either positive or negative influences on vulnerability to climate change. The role of social and technological innovations for development will be part of this discussion, focusing on the example of how renewable energy technologies can contribute to increased adaptive capacity and sustainable adaptation. The seminar will consider potential strategies to increase human security, including the benefits of integral approaches that take the role of diverse values, worldviews and stages of human development into account in responding to climate change.

From Research to Social Change: The Case of Ecosystem Services Convened by: Ilan Chabay, Gothenburg Centre for Plus,

Gothenburg, Sweden

Kanchan Chopra, Institute of Economic

Growth, New Delhi, India Hosted by: The Institute of Economic Growth.

This workshop is directed at learning about the process of moving from research to social change in the case of eco-system services and their contribution to human wellbeing. In the workshop, participants will examine and discuss the role of research in setting the agenda for change, the ad-hoc, policy, and institutional mechanisms for engaging communities in the research content and implications, and the incentives and barriers to evolve change through research.

adaptive water management, which is so essential in addressing global environmental change. Increasingly, instructors of water management, environmental management and natural resource management are interested in introducing adaptive water management in their teaching curricula. The teaching programme has thus been developed for instructors interested in including adaptive water management in their curricula.

IHDW in Delhi Over 170 researchers from all over the world have applied for these workshops. Each seminar will invite up to 16 scholars for a 4 day seminar. To foster integration with IHDP core projects, key scientists linked to the IHDP network have volunteered to provide training throughout the seminar. The IHDW will commence with a joint opening session that will bring the participants from each of the five seminars together. The seminars will adjourn with another group plenary session . on the outcomes of the previous days. Additionally, the IHDW participants will have the opportunity to present their work to and discuss it with esteemed members of the IHDP Scientific Committee, who will meet in New Delhi for their annual meeting from 14 – 17 October, 2008.

Maarit Thiem, IHDP Programme Officer for Capacity Development

Photos for this article: Matthew Winterburn

Capacity Development in Adaptive Water Management Headed by: Newater, Global Water Project (GWSP)

and UN Water Decade Programme for

Capacity Development UNW-DPC Covened by: Caroline van Bers, University of OsnabrĂźck,

OsnabrĂźck, Germany

Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga,

Alterra/Wageningen University,

Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Matthew Hare, UN Water Decade

Programme for Capacity Development,

United Nations University, Bonn, Germany Hosted by: The UN New Delhi Office

The training seminar will offer a teaching programme including individually downloadable modules with annotated presentations, exercises, discussion questions, relevant literature, links to databases and tools, aimed at capacity building in

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

5

The Human Dimensions of Health and Global Environmental Change

The Human Dimensions of Health and Global Environmental Change, Global Change & Urban Health Thomas Krafft and Mark W. Rosenberg

The process of urbanization entails radical changes in social organization, family relations, housing conditions, transport choices, recreational opportunities, dietary patterns, occupational environments, transmission of disease agents, and access to educational and health services. The rapid urbanisation process experienced by the majority of developing countries during the last few decades has resulted in fundamental changes to the environment as well as to the social structure and is affected by and at the same time contributes

6

to Global Change (Global Environmental Change and Human Health, 2007). While Global Change affects all urban areas in one way or the other, in many of the million-plus cities, the pace of urbanization has by far exceeded the growth of the necessary infrastructure and services, overtaxing the city administration’s ability and resources to cope appropriately with these problems (Krafft, Ziemann, 2006).

Direct and indirect health effects The influence of Global Change on the determinants of urban health can be direct or indirect. Injuries caused by extreme events and health implications of heat waves resulting from global warming or skin cancer due to stratospheric ozone depletion are examples of more direct causal links.

However, most of the causal relationships are neither simple nor immediate and result from the degradation of ecosystems altering food systems or leading to the (re-)emergence of infectious diseases such as SARS or H5N1 Avian Influenza (Global Environmental Change and Human Health, 2007).

Urban poor are most vulnerable The most vulnerable group in the urban setting is the urban poor. It is poverty rather than mere income inequality that drives poor health and mortality (Deaton, 2006). Multiple factors contribute to a higher vulnerability of the urban poor

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

The Human Dimensions of Health and Global Environmental Change

Urban poor in Mumbai, India Photo left: Phil Chambers Photos Right: Steve Evans

and to lower health status. Socio-economic barriers such as low income, irregular employment, gender inequality and inequity, language or religion/cultural background limit or even prevent access to health services. Poor housing and environmental conditions limit access to safe drinking water or sanitation facilities. The lack of environmental and health education reduces the ability to make timely and informed decisions on promoting health, preventing morbidity, identifying symptoms or on seeking appropriate care (World Bank, 2004). Though health indicators have persistently been better for urban populations than for rural, recent figures for India indicate that the health status for the urban poor is as bad or even worse compared to their rural counterparts (World Bank, 2002).

Local action as global response Urban health involves a multitude of actors with different interests such as city administration, public and private-forprofit health service providers, research institutions, nongovernmental organisations, regional/national governments, or international aid organisations. The urban construct is very complex, one city is different of another and, especially in million-plus cities, there are huge intra-urban differences. This calls for comprehensive evidence-based small-scale initiatives with a manageable size that take into account the specific local conditions such as the WHO Settings Approach. The role of urban authorities needs to change from

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

providing services to coordinating intersectoral initiatives involving the different actors from science, policy, practice and the public.

Dr. Thomas Krafft Geomed Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Hauptstr.

68, D-53604 Bad Honnef, Germany. Phone: +49 (0)22 24 77 99 896, E-mail: t.krafft@geomed-research.eu , Website: www.geomed-research.eu Dr. Mark W. Rosenberg Professor, Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University (Canada) Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University, Department of Geography, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 Phone: +1 613 533 6046, Fax: +1 613 533 6122, Website: http://geog.queensu.ca/ References: 1. Deaton, A. (2006): Global patterns of income and health: facts, interpretations, and policies. <http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/ annual-lectures/annual-lecture-2006.pdf>; 24 April 2008.

2. Global Environmental Change and Human Health (2007) Science Plan and Implementation Strategy. Earth System Science Partnership (DIVERSITAS, IGBP, IHDP, and WCRP) Report No.4; Global Environmental Change and Human Health Report No.1 3. Krafft, T., Ziemann, A. (2006) Global Change, Urbanisation and Health. An Introduction. In: Wang W., Krafft, T. & Kraas, F. (eds.)

(2006): Global Change, Urbanisation and Health. China Meteorological Press, Beijing: 11-24.

4. World Bank (ed.) (2002): Health of the poor in urban India. A consultation. <http://nweb18.worldbank.org/.../62ByDocName/Publications ReportsHealthofthePoorinUrbanIndia/$FILE/Health.PDF>; 24 April 2008 5. World Bank (ed.) (2004): The health of the poor in urban India. Directions for strategy. <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTURBANHEALTH/Resources/Health_of_the_Poor_in_Urban_India.doc>; 24 April 2008.

7

Transitions to Sustainability Through Systems Innovation

Photo left: Solar power farm, by afloresm, flickr.com Photo below: GM's Hydrogen powered car,

by John Mahowald

Transitions to Sustainability Through Systems Innovation

like climate change. The fundamental issue in this case is how to transform fossil fuel-based and high carbon-emitting energy systems into renewable-based and low carbon-emitting systems – in other words how to precipitate and guide a new low-carbon industrial revolution.

Understanding transitions – the system innovation perspective

Frans Berkhout

Cars fuelled with sustainably-produced hydrogen, carbonneutral buildings, large-scale hydroponic agriculture, solarpowered factories may still seem a little exotic today. But they are examples of the sorts of radically-alternative technologies that could play a major role in future, if economic activity around the world is to become more sustainable.

We know a lot about these technologies already. Technically and in terms of their environmental benefits, they seem very promising. The research challenge is to understand how these technologies will become more widely diffused, so that they come to stand at the heart of more sustainable social and economic systems in the future. Large-scale sociotechnical transitions of this sort have become an important theme in scientific and policy debate over the past decade, mainly as a result of major global environmental challenges

8

Socio-technical transitions are complex, long-term processes. One analytical and heuristic tool to trace and understand such processes is the multi-level perspective (MLP, Geels, 2002). The socio-technical regime forms the meso-level in the multi-level perspective. It consists of three interlinked dimensions: i) network of actors and social groups; ii) formal, normative and cognitive rules that guide the activities of actors; and iii) material and technical elements. Existing socio-technical regimes are characterised by path dependence and lock-in, resulting from a range of stabilising mechanisms: incumbent actors have vested interests; social networks represent ‘organizational capital’; regulations and standards stabilise regimes; cognitive routines blind actors to developments outside their focus; and existing machines and infrastructures stabilise through sunk investments and technical complementarities between components.

Niches form the micro-level. They are a locus where novelties emerge. This may occur in small market niches or technological niches, where resources are provided by pub-

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

Transitions to Sustainability Through Systems Innovation

lic subsidies (Raven, 2005). Niches act as ‘incubation rooms’, shielding new technologies from mainstream market selection. Such protection is needed because new technologies are initially often costly and not well-attuned to user demand. Protection comes from small networks of actors who are willing to invest in the development of new technologies.

Important niche-internal processes are building of social networks, learning processes and articulation of expectations to guide learning processes.

The macro-level is the socio-technical landscape, which forms an exogenous environment that changes slowly and influences niches and regime dynamics. The relationship between the three levels is a nested hierarchy. Pioneers and innovators always work on novelties, but these usually remain restricted to niches (e.g. small projects). New technologies have a hard time to break through, because the existing regime is stabilised and entrenched. Historical studies have shown that transitions only come about when developments at all three levels link up and reinforce each other.

Extending the debate on transitions to rapidly-developing countries Much of this debate has taken place in industrialised countries, especially in Europe. But we also recognise that transformative economic, technological and institutional changes are happening in rapidly urbanising and developing Asia, with unprecedented implications for global sustainability (Rock and Angel, 2005). The Industrial Transformation project of IHDP (IHDP-IT), with support of the Dutch Knowledge Network on System Innovation (KSI), has therefore focused its attention over the past two years on connecting scientific debates about transitions and sustainability with scholarship on social, economic and institutional change in Asia. We have been interested to learn what ongoing transformational changes - taking place in a distinctive period of globalization – can tell us about system change, but also to explore whether trajectories of development in rapidly-industrialising countries could follow different, more sustainable pathways.

This process has included two international workshops, the first of which took place in Chiang Mai in July 2006 and has resulted in a special issue of Technological Forecasting and Social Change (Berkhout et al, 2009, forthcoming). Three important findings stand out from this work. First, in a second wave of environmental governance reform, most Asian countries have adopted far-reaching commitments to the principles of sustainable development (Angel, 2009 forth-

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

coming). Second, these principles have in many cases found practical expression in a huge variety of public and private small-scale ‘sustainability experiments’, across a wide variety of sectors, including transport, the built environment and food and agriculture. Third, there is empirical evidence that global production networks have, in many cases, had positive impacts on the resource efficiency and pollution intensity of industrial production in Asia (Rock, 2009 forthcoming). Despite this, the underlying trends are away from sustainability (Bai et al, TFSC, 2009, forthcoming), because of the difficulties with the scaling up of the good practices and the scaling down of policy intentions.

The IHDW Workshop on Transitions to Sustainability through Systems Innovation to be held in New Delhi will work with a group of young scholars on analysing sociotechnical transitions in a range of sectors and regions of the world.

Frans Berkhout Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam.

1. Angel, D. (2009 in press) Environmental Rationalities and the Development State in East Asia: Prospects for a Sustainability Transition.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

2. Bai, X., Wieczorek, A.J., Kaneko, S., Lisson, S., and Contreras, A. (2009 in press) Enabling sustainability transitions in Asia: the importance of vertical and horizontal linkages. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

3. Berkhout, F., Angel, D. and Wieczorek, A. (2009 in press). Asian development pathways and sustainable socio-technical regimes. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

4. Geels, F. W., (2002): Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and case study, Research Policy 31(8/9): 1257-1274 5. Raven, R. (2007) Niche accumulation and hybridisation strategies in transition processes towards a sustainable energy system: An assessment of differences and pitfalls. Energy Policy 35(4); 2390-2400.

6. Rock, M., Murphy, J.T. , Rasiah, R. , van Seters, P. and Managi, S. (2009 in press) Does globalisation promote or hinder sustainability transitions? Evidence from the developing Asia, Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

9

Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change

Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change Karen O'Brien, Linda Sygna and Kirsten Ulsrud

A Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) organized IHDW

The Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) project is organizing an International Human Dimensions Workshop (IHDW) in collaboration with TERI on the theme â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Changeâ&#x20AC;?. A total of twenty-two highly qualified researchers and practitioners from around the world have been selected to participate in this workshop to explore what constitutes sustainable adaptation and how human security can be enhanced through climate adaptation.

The growing demand for knowledge and guidance on climate change adaptation poses challenges to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. There is widespread attention to the role of climate factors in social and economic development and in poverty reduction strategies, and it is increasingly recognized that climate change adaptations can potentially serve as effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase human security. The relationships among climate change adaptation, development, and human security are, however, not straightforward, and theoretical results can be diffuse and difficult to translate into concrete actions and strategies. For example, much of the research on the linkages between poverty and vulnerability to climate variability and change concludes that climate adaptation measures must be context-specific and comprehensive, addressing a broad range of factors and scales. Yet most researchers, practitioners and policymakers understand that climate change is not the only change that is affecting households and communities in developed and developing countries. There are many other ongoing environmental and societal changes that influence the capacity of households and communities to respond to stresses and shocks, and hence a very dynamic context influences the outcomes of climate change.

10

Climate change adaptation has been closely associated with social and technological innovations, and it is becoming clear that renewable energy technologies are necessary for increased adaptive capacity and sustainable adaptation to climate change. Questions remain regarding what types of factors need to be addressed at local, regional, and global levels in order to make climate adaptation and alternative energy pathways possible, and what kinds of activities and measures for climate adaptation should be emphasized.

It is also becoming clear that not every adaptation to climate change will benefit social-ecological systems in the long run, and many may have negative effects in the short run. For example, water desalination plants may be favored as a potential adaptation to climate change, but the salty brine waste may have impacts on local ecosystems, including marine flora and fauna, and hence livelihoods. Those adaptations that provide benefits to a particular sector or group while creating negative consequences for others can create new types of social, economic, and environmental problems. Identifying adaptation measures that are sustainable can contribute to poverty reduction and alternative development pathways that enhance human security, both for present and future generations.

The human dimensions community is investigating the consequences of adaptation responses to climate change, developing new insights on the linkages between poverty reduction strategies and vulnerability reduction measures, as well as on the actual and potential role of decentralized renewable energy supplies for sustainable adaptation. As climate change adaptation becomes a part of many political and institutional agendas, there is an urgent need to consider adaptations that not only reduce the impacts of climate change, but also contribute to sustainable development and human security.

Photo by laffy4k, flickr.com

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

From Knowledge and Learning to Sustainable Behavior

Doing science together in school for migrant workers’ children in Guangzhou, China Photographer: Jan Riise, gcPLUS, March 2008

From Research to Social Change: The Case of Ecosystem Services Ilan Chabay

Knowing, Learning, and Changing Behavior: A New IHDP Research Initiative

In order to evolve a sustainable global society that benefits all, both present and future, the world’s people must become and remain active participants in building it. At the core of a new initiative at IHDP is the premise that this can only happen if a large fraction of our human society changes its behavior to adopt more sustainable practices. To enact this behavioral change across the world’s communities and institutions will require a collaborative process of producing and communicating knowledge and active learning. This process must engage all people in their multiple roles as individuals, as part of communities, and as members of organizations. At the same time, scientists and policy makers need to take responsibility for learning from, understanding, and responding to their community’s knowledge, concerns, and needs in light of the conditions and requirements of the global social, ecological, and economic system. This process, taking place simultaneously at the grass-roots level and at the policy-making level, offers the possibility to move societies to sustainability, but will it actually result in behavioral changes on the necessary temporal and physical scale?

Understanding the complex interactions between the production and communication of knowledge, individual and social learning, and attitudinal and behavioral change

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

is the arena of a new IHDP initiative entitled, ”Knowledge and Social Learning for Behavioral Change to Sustainability” (KASL).

The ideas shaping KASL have been developing in meetings and workshops over the past year . A group of researchers are developing a detailed scientific research plan for KASL over the next 12 months, which will then be presented for approval by the IHDP Scientific Committee.

This issue of UPDATE provides an opportunity to present the initial ideas to a wider community, including the scholars and policy makers who will participate in the capacity-building process of IHDW in New Delhi in October 2008.

The ideas presented in this article complement the perspective clearly presented by Professor Kanchan Chopra in this issue. These two articles provide a framework for the IHDW program that she and I look forward to jointly convening in New Delhi on “From Research to Social Action: the case of ecosystem services.”

In this article, I will outline my perspective on the central ideas and research questions of the KASL program, discuss an example from of my group’s research projects that illustrates issues that fall within the KASL framework, and suggest links between the KASL program and existing IHDP core projects.

11

From Knowledge and Learning to Sustainable Behavior

Issues that frame KASL research:

Two perspectives are central in characterizing KASL. One is the focus on understanding the complex connections between knowledge and learning as inputs and behavioral change as outcome. The second is the recognition that the objectives of the KASL project include not only rigorous scholarship yielding deeper insights, but also design research that develops and tests successful strategies for fostering behavioral changes to sustainable practices on multiple time and geographical scales.

In considering research on knowledge and social learning that leads to changes in behavior , it is important to make a democratic belief explicit: changing behaviors must be based on open access to knowledge and learning, rather than manipulation or coercion.

Another point concerns the fundamental uncertainties in scientific data on complex phenomena and competing priorities or economic interests in modeling or interpreting data. Uncertainty and competing interests can easily lead to challenges on credibility and trustworthiness of knowledge sources. Yet the uncertain nature of science, the spectrum of competing self-interests, and radically different world-views are the inevitable background on which strategies for change leading to sustainability must be developed and learned. This has profound implications for meaningful co-production of knowledge, learning by building new understanding on the foundation of existing knowledge, and the emergence of constructive changes in behavior.

Through meetings and workshops over the past year, central issues have emerged that frame the research on knowledge, learning, and behavior change in the context of global (environmental) change. KASL research can be grouped around five issues. They are: 1. Knowledge and its forms, production, movement, and access to it across cultures and geographical scales.

2. Mechanisms and dynamics of learning by individuals, communities, and institutions in the context of the challenges of global change.

3. Positive and negative determinants of changes in attitudes, thinking, and behavior in moving from knowledge to sustainable behaviors.

4. Processes leading to the adoption of collective attitudes and emergence of concerted behaviors in society.

5. The interplay between policy-making and knowledge, learning, and changes in societal behavior.

In designing the KASL research program, we will need

12

to consider which conceptual and theoretical approaches are most useful for characterizing and providing insight into knowledge systems, knowledge production, and social learning processes. Theoretical treatments exist that address these matters at the individual, community, and institutional levels and in terms of actors, institutions, regimes, and boundaries.

On one hand there are the models of knowledge production and learning in institutions and social aggregates and on the other hand there are the cognitive and motivational theories of learning that focus on individuals and consider the effects on them of social mediation and cultural context. There are also the less formal, yet often equally insightful frameworks and operational guidelines of practitioners (e.g., teachers, journalists, policy makers, lawyers, NGO and corporate executives, museum staff ) that should be given full consideration as working models.

It is essential that we build upon these theories and models with a particular focus on ways that advance our understanding of the conditions for behavioral change to sustainability. It is equally important that we use this understanding to foster sustainable practices as behavioral outcomes.

The KASL research program will also need to draw upon the methodologies of many disciplines. These include a range of data collections methods, analytical tools to examine, compare, and characterize data, and a meaningful approach to the measurement of learning associated with behavioral change in different cultures, private and public institutions, and conditions.

General considerations of theory and methods for use in KASL may become clearer when seen in the context of specific projects. I will use an example taken from the research projects currently conducted by my group at the Gothenburg Center for Public Learning and Understanding of Science (gcPLUS) in Sweden.

Baltic Sea Governance of Fisheries The project, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Facilitating Governance of Baltic Seas Fisheries by Improving Communication Among Stakeholders,â&#x20AC;? addresses knowledge systems, determinants of change, and science policy interactions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; issues 1, 3, and 5 in the schema noted above.

This project , which began in January 2008 and will run for 18 months, has two parts. The first part consists of studying the knowledge, communication, and attitudes among stakeholders in the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BS RAC) and its partner organizations. Based on the results

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

From Knowledge and Learning to Sustainable Behavior

Image: WWF

of the study, the second part is to develop and implement mechanisms that facilitate the role of the BS RAC in governance of the Baltic Sea Fisheries in a sustainable manner.

The BS RAC was established by the European Commission in 2006 and is charged with providing consensus advice to the Commission on behalf of the fisheries sector and other interest groups in the Baltic Sea. The BS RAC members must consider scientific data on the status and prognosis for the fisheries in their deliberations. The data are collected, organized, and interpreted by scientists from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and national research agencies of the Baltic Member States.

The composition of the BS RAC - two thirds of the members representing the commercial fishing sector (fishing industry, food processors, and fishermen) and one third representing the other interested non-governmental organizations (e.g. environmental groups, consumer organizations, sport fishers) – reflects the Commission’s efforts to promote stronger stakeholder participation in science-based decision making.

The diversity of interest groups, national, cultural and professional backgrounds within the BS RAC makes the communication and consensus building quite difficult.

To improve this process, the project addresses questions of knowledge and social learning, and communication and understanding of science. Among the questions we are addressing in the project are the following: • How is scientific knowledge relevant to the Baltic RAC members produced, communicated, understood, and used?

• What role does “local knowledge” play vis-à-vis for-

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

mal knowledge held by the scientists in establishing the scientific basis for decisions?

• Does misunderstanding or miscommunication of science significantly hinder effective governance within the BS RAC? • How are national differences in attitude toward science and science-based policy reflected in discourse and conflicts?

• Does the participatory process of the BS RAC substantially influence fisheries governance on a national or EU level?

• What effect does stakeholder participation in the BS RAC have on social learning and improving understanding of fisheries issues on the community level?

The research includes the focused observation of meetings and procedures and in- depth interviews with members of the BS RAC, ICES (International Council on Exploration of the Seas) and Member States’ agency scientists, NGO (non- governmental organization) representatives, and European Commission staff.

The BS RAC, as an example of a participatory governance mechanism, is congruent with the EU’s commitment to improve the democratic involvement of diverse elements of civil society in European science-based decision-making .

At the same time the RAC mechanism is intended to address urgent European policy challenges that are often viewed as strongly scientific in nature. Therefore, the research findings and strategies developed to facilitate the participatory governance also have relevance for science-based decisionmaking and the governance of the commons in many other contexts.

Mutual benefits of interaction between KASL and IHDP core projects This new research initiative of KASL will join the portfolio of IHDP projects when the scientific research plan is accepted, thus it is important to understand the mutually beneficial interplay between KASL and other IHDP projects. The issues that lie within the domain of KASL are crucial to all IHDP core projects. This will allow KASL to contribute to other projects through the research it produces, while also drawing upon the rich resource of work in other projects as research case studies.

A few of the many possible research fields that can be linked to core and joint projects are:

13

From Knowledge and Learning to Sustainable Behavior

• VRA - Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptation: examination of the relationship between knowledge, learning, and understanding on one hand and adaptive capacity or reduction of vulnerability as behavioral responses to stressors on the other hand.

• LOICZ – Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone: interaction between knowledge, learning, and behavior in regard to anthropogenic effects on coastal zone resources • GECAFS – Global Environmental Change and Food Systems: the relationship between knowledge, social learning, and behaviors in regard to production and consumption patterns.

• GWSP – Global Water Systems Project: understanding rights and learning to engage in governance of water resources; understanding the behavioral, cultural and development dimensions of water use; understanding water resources in terms of rural versus urban use and upstream versus downstream access.

• UGEC - Urbanization and global environmental change: the relationship of rural and urban access to information and learning relevant to local environmental concerns with rural migration to urban environments.

• IRG - Integrated risk governance: understanding of risk sources, identifying sources of knowledge and access to them, and the relationship between knowledge and choices made by individuals and communities in crisis.

IHDW: from research to action - ecosystem services in the KASL framework

The difficulties in addressing the threats to ecosystems in many parts of the world can be seen as being directly related to aspects of knowledge, learning, and behavioral change.

Mobilizing public engagement in and support for sustainable practices in regard to threatened eco-systems on one hand and forming robust policy initiatives to direct change effectively are notoriously difficult. Does the community affected by or dependent on an ecosystem have the explicit knowledge and understanding to have an effective voice in finding ways to maintain essential ecosystem services? Are the negative determinants of change largely economic or political or social? Are there mechanisms that can couple initially isolated groups with a willingness to change and thereby lead

14

to a sufficiently widespread and powerful movement that can influence the future of the ecosystem in a positive way?

Next steps for the development of KASL

As mentioned earlier, the process of establishing Knowledge and Social Learning for Behavioral Change to Sustainability as an IHDP initiative has begun. The scientific planning committee (SPC) will be appointed shortly and will draw upon the work undertaken in meetings and workshops over the past year. The KASL SPC will engage with colleagues working on related issues and in other IHDP projects to collect, sort, and integrate ideas and materials needed to draft a scientific plan for presentation to the International Science Committee of IHDP for approval. The SPC will be asked to submit a draft scientific plan to the IHDP Scientific Committee by May of 2009 for its approval. In the meantime, suggestions and comments for the SPC are most welcome and can be sent to Ellen Pfeiffer at IHDP. We look forward to participation by many in the research that will define this new initiative’s response to the social challenges of global change that lie before us all.

Ilan Chabay is Erna & Victor Hasselblad Professor of Public Learning and Understanding of Science (PLUS) and Director, Göteborg Center for PLUS (gcPLUS.org) at Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

References: 1. Workshop on “Social Learning and Knowledge as a Cross-Cutting Theme in IHDP Research” Berlin, May 2007 organized and chaired by Bernd Siebenhüner; a planning meeting in Cologne in November 2007; and Thinkshop entitled “Knowledge and Social Learning for Societal Change and Sustainability” in Berlin, February 2008 organized and co-chaired by Bernd Siebenhüner and Ilan Chabay 2. See the article in this UPDATE issue by Professor Kanchan Chopra entitled, “Designing Interventions for Sustaining Growth: and other Dimensions of Change.”

3. See for example: Briden, J., Blackmore, Ison, R. and Jiggins, J. (ed.)(2007): “Social learning as an alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of Europe’s water” Environmental Science & Policy 10 (6) 4. The Baltic Sea 2020 Foundation, Swedish Fisheries Ministry, and European Commission have generously provided funding for this project. It is being conducted by the gcPLUS research group, which includes Olga Stepanova, Christian Stöhr, Jan Riise, Jurgita Mikelenaite, and Ilan Chabay.

5. For a comparative study of 26 case-studies across eight European countries see: Hagendijk, R., Healey, P., Horst, M. and Irwin, A. (2005) “Science, Technology and Governance in Europe: Challenges of Public Engagement” STAGE (HPSE-CT2001-50003) Final Report. Url: http://www. stage-research.net/STAGE/documents/STAGE_ Final_Report_final.pdf 6. For a case study of scientific advisory councils (SAC) in the UK, see Jones, K. E. and Irwin, A. (2008) “Creating space for engagement? Lay membership in contemporary risk governance” in Jones, K.E., Irwin, A., Farelly, M. and Stilgoe, J. “Understanding Lay Membership and Scientific Governance” London. Defra

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

Designing Interventions for Sustaining Growth

Photo Left: Forest near Missoorie, Uttar Anchal, India; Jawad Zakariya Photo Above: Town of Deradhun, nestled in Missoorie forest; Jawad Zakariya

From Research to Social Change: The Case of Ecosystem Services - II Kanchan Chopra

Designing Interventions for Sustaining Growth and other Dimensions of Change

Growth and Change: a few factual observations In mid-2008, the global perspective is pervaded by the extraordinary economic success of China and India as exemplified by rates of growth of 9-10% and more. Economic systems in these two countries, pushed ahead by interlinked global markets, investments and technologies dominate the efforts at reduction of poverty and hunger. This is laudable. However, the following, at times contradictory characteristics mark the larger picture, whether viewed from the ‘ southern’ and the ‘ northern’ perspectives : 1. A preference for material well-being, pushing other aspects of well –being into the background; 2. Preference for technologies that address “scarcity alleviation” in the somewhat limited sense in which economics defines it, 3. A limited concern for the global impacts of unmitigated growth and with the state of planet earth 4. Not much attention to the issues raised by “ overconsumption”by the rich everywhere, whether in the north or the south.

The above viewpoints dominate the global agenda, just a few months after the Fourth IPCC report provided careful documentation of the impact that anthropogenic activity has had on the planet earth. While impending climate

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

change is indeed on the mental horizon of stakeholders all over the world, we are far from implementing or even designing a slew of policy instruments to meet the challenge.

Humans face an unfinished agenda of trying to device national and international processes through which they agree on how to ensure increases in human well-being without further impacting our common future negatively.

It is not easy to link this agenda to national, regional and local development issues. The elements of a possible framework in which to do this lie in the twin concepts of “ecosystem services”and “ human wellbeing”. The first underlines the similarity between services provided by ecosystems and other goods and services which contribute to human well-being. Ecosystem services, whether of the provisioning, regulating or cultural kind matter and contribute to the wellbeing of humans. Further, human well-being is a matter of multiple capabilities and access to different kinds of resources; Finally, given appropriate time and spatial scales, there exists a fair degree of complementarity between environmental and developmental concerns. However, not enough effort is invested by decision makers in their individual and collective capacities to investigate into the nature of the appropriate scales and the ways to reach them. Why does this happen and what can we do about it?

15

Designing Interventions for Sustaining Growth

Why? On the role of markets: either ‘asymmetrically empowered’ or ‘missing’?

Decision makers in different countries, whether at the individual, community or national levels operate through a set of institutions. Some of these institutions are better linked with each other, and thereby impact choice between alternative uses of ecosystems faster and with greater impact. Foremost among these are markets which often do a great job in ensuring provisioning services for groups of stakeholders. Unfortunately, regulating and cultural services of natural ecosystems are often not mediated or even taken account of in these overly powerful institutions. This results in asymmetrical significance to different kinds of services, often to the detriment of the wellbeing of some sections and definitely at the cost of future wellbeing of all.

Witness the current focus in urban contexts such as Delhi to expand built environments in particular for specific events such as the Commonwealth Games, to the utter disregard of the regulating services provided by spaces such as river beds where the expansion is to take place. The Yamuna floodplains augment ground water supply in a city where demand for water is increasing but that does not seem to impact decision making in the short run. Who cares for the water regulating service of a floodplain when urban construction is the boom sector driving employment and growth? Never mind that chronic water scarcity and episodic flooding may be the lot of the self-same urban habitats a few years down the line.

Perceptive theoretical analysts have commented on this. Note, for instance, the following: “Markets for all sorts of commodities are missing in our world. Prominent among those assets that don't have markets, competitive or otherwise, are transnational watersheds, the atmosphere, and the resources of the open seas. As the world community remains unable to get goverments to step in, prices of commodities relying substantially on global natural resources don't even approximately reflect their scarcity values. Turning to local resources, such assets as microwatersheds and mangrove forests are vital to the rural poor. However, the ecological services they provide to industry and fish farms are in many cases not paid for. But governments in poor countries all too often have no tax policies or regulations in place to eliminate the price distortions arising from an absence of markets for those services”1 Further, globalization of the world economy implies that trade has a profound impact on local incomes as also use

16

of resources such as land and water. By way of example, a few results from a study in eastern India provide important learnings2. We found that increased export of shrimp has led to increased incomes both from production and processing for large numbers of people.. However, full cost of using natural resources is not taken into account in the presence of short run profit orientation and the simultaneous availability of cheap labour. This often leads to misallocation of resources and erosion of biodiversity. In this region, the huge expansion in land under aquaculture did not lead to the establishment of hatcheries to provide prawn seed, as would have been expected. This was due to the presence of adjacent water-bodies populated with wild prawn seed together with the availability of cheap labour to collect these using crude methods of collection. Our study shows that these methods led to a decrease in biodiversity at several locations (as measured by an index based on time series data).

Further, results based on an econometric analysis of costs indicate that this is completely unnecessary. Eeven if a biodiversity loss cost were to be assigned and seed prices to aqua culturists were to rise as a consequence, farmers would be able to absorb the rise, given the present structure of costs and the present price levels for their output. The nature of the international demand in this case suggests that compensation for biodiversity loss could have been made or the cost of hatcheries could have been supported. Absence of awareness of the loss of ecological services results in this callous indifference. Pricing resources correctly and ensuring functioning markets for different kinds of services can take us part of the way towards an appropriate design of interventions.

On ignoring the role of institutions other than the market : the law and social norms The right prices operating in well-functioning markets cannot provide all the answers. The most perfect of markets reflect individual preferences and in a large number of situations, “there is a wedge between the rates private investors use to discount their future earnings and the rates the world community ought to use to discount collective benefits in the future”.3 It is because of this that instruments such as law and social norms, which reflect the larger ethical concerns of humans, have a significant roe to play. Future progress in designing appropriate policy responses to the climate change issue will have to address these ethical underpinnings squarely. Stern (2006)4 in fact starts by noting these ethical concerns, which at times have entered the literature through responses to the

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

Designing Interventions for Sustaining Growth

issue of appropriate social rates of discount He has called for immediate decisive action to stabilize greenhouse gases because “ the benefits of strong early action on climate change outweigh the costs”. The Stern Review, also points towards the danger of extending the principles of economics to the analysis of problems of critical import for the existence of life on earth. While Stern does so in the context of a problem facing the global commons and the depletion of the global natural capital through the concentration of green house gases, the same conclusions could be reached through an analysis of critical ecosystem services and ‘biodiversity”.More than a decade earlier, the NOAA Panel in the United States also opted for use of the precautionary principle in a large gamut of issues where the limits to human understanding posed significant questions. The limits of economic analysis are perhaps best understood by the most authentic of its practitioners.

More recently, when it came to advising on valuation of forest land for non-forest use, the Expert Committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India5 advised caution. It stated that critical habitats and protected areas, embodying high levels of biodiversity, are not be converted to non-forest use at any cost. Well-implemented law was recommended as the policy instrument to protect such habitat. Other noncritical habitats were to be valued using benefit-cost based net present values with discounting and other such principles as guideposts.. Some concepts such as bio-diversity need to be viewed from multiple perspectives. They are to be viewed as both within and outside the fold of ecosystem services. The existence of multiple species provides services of many kinds to humans. These can be valued but ‘ biodiversity’ as a contributor to “life-on earth” is beyond narrow notions of value. This is a clear pointer to policy analysts to treat some issues as beyond the scope of prices and economic instruments ,not because they are unimportant but because they are invaluable. The dividing line determines the relative spheres of economics and ethics may vary from culture to culture as institutions and values differ.

However, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India6 does not give due credence to this dividing line. It says, “the use of forest land in National Parks/Wildlife sanctuaries will be permissible in totally unavoidable circumstances for public interests and after obtaining permission from the Honourable Court. Such permissions may be considered on payment of an amount equal to ten times in case of national parks ...of the NPV payable for such areas”. Applying the principle of payment for conversion, howsoever high to the case of biodiversity conserving national parks is indeed a travesty.

It exhibits a dangerous level of economic fundamentalism. A

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

better route to biodiversity conservation is good implementation of legal impediments backed by precise scientific definition of critical habitats.

Reaching the appropriate mix: Are we expecting too much from human societies?

In a fast developing world, how do we create space for the non-market related aspects of well being created by ecosystems: in particular, the cultural services, the regulating services and the contribution of biodiversity. The process needs more accurate knowledge and its transformation into policy relevant conclusions, followed by a constant dialogue between stakeholders with differing interests, perceptions and power.

Interestingly, in the area of climate change related policy, we see an international institutionalized structure with the successive IPCC assessments and the Conference of Parties (COP) have enabled this coming together of stakeholders. It can of course be claimed that this structure has only highlighted differences between groups of nations. The Kyoto Protocol, the most widely accepted agreement reached on, has been critiqued for its faulty design. In retrospect, ,its quantitative obligations (which even most of the EU did not fulfill) did not reflect reflect the complete market principle of charging each state for ALL emissions, past and current.8 And we are aware of the pitfalls facing global negotiators as we think in terms of a post-2012 regime.

As we pursue some of the above mentioned forward looking policy options, we need to ensure that the older developed countries pursue the goal of responsible development. The dialogue leading to the design of appropriate interventions shall be facilitated if new fast growing economies are seen internationally as nations which also view their commitments to the future of planet earth in a responsible fashion. Humans the world over owe it to themselves and to the planet Kanchan Chopra Professor and Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India References: 1. Dasgupta (2005) 2. For full details, See Chopra, Kumar and Kapuria (forthcoming) 3. See Dasgupta (2005) 4. See Stern( 2006) The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change 5. Report Of The Expert Committee on Net Present Value of Forest Land (2006) 6. Order of the Supreme Court of India dated March 28, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 826 etc etc.

7. For a succinct analysis arguing for charging for all, stock and flow emissions see Bhagwati (2008), talk on Global Warming at Florence, Italy, April.

17

Adaptive Water Management

Adaptive Water Management Matthew Hare

18

UNW-DPC, the newly created UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development, hosted by the United Nations University, and NeWater, the European Union Integrated Project on â&#x20AC;&#x153;New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertaintyâ&#x20AC;? have formed a new partnership in Capacity Development by convening a novel train-thetrainer course to disseminate the NeWater-GWSP curriculum on Adaptive Water Management at the International Human Dimensions Workshop (IHDW) 2008, organised by IHDP. This will be held between the 12th and 15th October 2008 in New Delhi, India.

NeWater, through the University of OsnabrĂźck in Germany, Alterra/Wageningen University in the Netherlands, and the Global Water System Project (GWSP), had launched a comprehensive teaching curriculum in adaptive water management aimed at instructors of Masters and PhD level programmes in environmental/resources management, hydrology and related disciplines. The first set of modules of the current curriculum is available on the internet in the form of freely available OpenCourseWare teaching modules that can be downloaded and modified for use by instructors.

The modules have been written by international water management experts and introduce the concepts and methods of adaptive management and integrated water resources management for application in the context of global change.

Topics include resilience and adaptive capacity, water policy mechanisms, uncertainty analysis, vulnerability assessment, participatory processes, performance indicators, monitoring and more. The modules include presentations with explanatory notes, exercises, discussion questions and background readings, as well as relevant links and case study profiles for teaching purposes.

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

Adaptive Water Management

Water pumps in Asia and Africa. Photos: World Bank Photo Collection

The planned course at IHDW 2008 has been developed by train-the-trainers experts from NeWater and, in support, UNW-DPC and is designed to help instructors learn how to use the curriculum so as to develop teaching capacity in the field of adaptive water management. As such, this course is an exciting innovation for IHDW, since it will be the first time that a course will be provided for trainers rather than students, as has been the tradition in past workshops in Costa Rica (2004) and Chiang Mai (2006). Depending on the level of interest, further training courses for instructors will be organised.

The course is realised through financial support from IHDP, GWSP, NeWater, UNW-DPC, and UNDP for instructors and participants. In support of the main NeWater trainers from the Institute of Environmental Systems Research (USF) at the University of Osnabrueck and Alterra/Wageningen University, a UNW-DPC staff member, who has contributed to a module in the curriculum, will also provide instruction at the course in New Delhi.

Matthew Hare Senior Programme Officer, UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) For more information concerning the online curriculum and the course see http://www.newater.info/everyone/2654 and http://www.newater.info/everyone/2654 For future courses contact: Daniel Petry, Global Water System Project daniel.petry@uni-bonn.de; Caroline van Bers, University of OsnabrĂźck, cvbers@usf.uos.de; Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Alterra/Wageningen University, Catharien.Terwisscha@wur.nl; Matthew Hare, UNW-DPC, hare@unwater.unu.edu See also: NeWater: www.info.org, GWSP: www.gwsp.org, UNW-DPC: www.unwater.unu.edu

About UNW-DPC

Adding Value in Water-Related Capacity Development

United Nations Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) celebrated its opening in August 2007 at the UN Campus in Bonn, Germany. UNW-DPC is hosted by the United Nations University and supported by the Federal Government of Germany. The broad mission of UNW-DPC is to enhance the coherence and integrated effectiveness of the capacity development activities of the more than two-dozen UN organisations and programmes already cooperating within the interagency mechanism known as UNWater and thereby to support them in their efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) related to water. UNW-DPC is clearly focusing on developing countries and economies in transition. It is envisaged that UNW-DPC capacity development activities will improve the capacity and competence of national and local stakeholders in integrated water resources management and to reduce stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; dependence on donors and support self-sufficiency within a globalised economy.

For more information: see www.unwater.unu.edu

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008

19

IHDP Open Meeting 2009 Challenges of Global Change

7th International Science Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change 26-30 April 2009 World Conference Center Bonn UN Campus Bonn, Germany

www.openmeeting2009.org

20

IHDP Update IHDW Extra 2008