Developing policy options for dealing with the emissions of greenhouse gases is a thorny problem, especially as the subject matter is related to the issues of climate change and sustainable development. It is complicated not only because of the complex dynamics of the climate system, but also because of the potential societal ramifications in the near and distant future. The relevance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is different when viewed by policy makers, third parties and scientists.

One group views the greenhouse effect as a potentially serious problem that needs swift attention; another group is of opinion that it is still too early to draw any conclusions. In order to deal with the apparent gap in perception, the project on 'Development of policy options for dealing with the greenhouse effect on sustainable development' has been set up to enhance communication between these three 'communities' and to identify viable policy options. The project is part of the Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change (NRP).

Goals of the project

1. To enhance the communication between policy makers, third parties and scientists;
2. To explore a range of options such as no regret, least regret, early adaptation, hedging etc. and possibly to identify new ones;
3. To input these options into the Dutch policy making process;
4. To generate a series of questions and concerns for the second phase of NRP.

Workshops The project has been set up as a series of three consecutive workshops. The first one addresses the formulation of key questions that concern policy makers and managers. They will be used as input for two parallel workshops: one elaborating on those questions that are relevant from natural science point of view, the second one giving answers to socioeconomic and technological questions. The output of both workshops, combined with the questions generated in the first workshop, will form the input for the third workshop, during which a range of options will be explored and identified by Dutch policy and institutional actors. Two more workshops are envisioned. During the fourth workshop the Dutch perspective will be put into an international (European and possibly global) context, the aim being to broaden the strategic vision gained during the third workshop. Finally, during the fifth workshop, viable policies which have been explored and identified will be reviewed to set the political agenda. The first workshop was finished recently and time is appropriate to convey some of the results.

Multiple reality Although the greenhouse metaphor has been introduced by the natural sciences, the subsequent linkage of the results of scientific research with policy making implied a broadening of scope and thus of interpretion of problems, causes, impacts and options. The rationalist approach of the natural sciences was no longer predominant in the debate. Because of the complexity of the problem and the existing scientific uncertainties concerning greenhouse effects, a variety of competing definitions of reality exist, that are based on the different perceptions and positions of the major actors involved.

Policy life cycle and knowledge utilization In order to understand the complicated dynamics of environmental policy making, especially as related to greenhouse gases emissions, a frame of reference is presented which illustrates the interconnections between phases of the policy life cycle and the macrocycles of policy- oriented research. The macrocycle consists of five basic functions of scientific knowledge construction and utilization. These functions are:

1. Goal formulation: issue or problem identification.
2. Method development: development of a body of explicit knowledge for surveying the relevant field. It stems from the research component together with
3. Science production: providing inputs to planning and decision making processes by helping to expand the range of useful alternatives.
4. Science linking: that is, the process of coupling research to its intended users. The objective is to influence individual perceptions, behaviour, and attitudes.
5. Science utilization: including interventions and actions actually taken to achieve the objectives, and information feedback potentially leading to adjustment of goals, method developments, etc.

Of the five functions represented in the macrocycle, the recursive process of 'method development' and 'science production' (the microcycle) is best established.

The policy life cycle consists of four phases:

• articulation;
• aggregation;
• allocation; and
• review.

While goals are different, scientific research has distinct roles to play in each phase of the policy life cycle.

During the articulation phase there is a growing awareness in society, led by small leading groups, that some issue needs major attention. Policy makers respond to it and emphasis is placed on group building within major interest groups. The major role of the sciences is in supporting the conceptualization process: that is, interrelating perceptions, positions, concepts, processes and values. It is a process of appreciation by linking two types of judgement: a judgement of facts (reality judgement) about the (Dutch) environmental conditions (past, present and future); and a judgement about the significance of these facts to a variety of appreciators.

During the aggregation phase coalitions are built between interest groups. This is the phase of the actual policy making in bringing forward measures and preparing laws. The role of science during this phase is primarily related to supporting social problem solving.

During the allocation phase public administration facilities are set up, budgets are defined and allocated. Science may play an important role in providing an assessment of the evidence and in helping to persuade major actors to comply with the policy. During this phase (decentralized) public administration departments start executing the policies.

During the legislative review phase policies are evaluated, blind spots are identified and criticism is mobilized. Science, when involved in this phase, focuses mainly on performance evaluation. The end of this first cycle might be the beginning of the next one, starting with re-articulating the issue etc.

Roles of scientific disciplines in knowledge utilization Scientific research has distinct roles to play through each of the phases. So the natural sciences have contributed considerably to the articulation phase by drawing attention to the greenhouse effect and its potential relationships with climate change and sustainable development. They have played a key role in conceptualizing the issue and in stimulating group building processes within the major (Dutch) interest groups. The social and behavioral sciences have so far played a minor role. It is reasonable to assume that their role will increase as environmental policy making will need more support in social problem solving, evidence assessment and performance evaluation. This kind of scientific support may become more manifest during the latter phases of the policy life cycle. However, the articulation phase is by no means over yet, as scientific research has not generated convincing and consistent evidence of the greenhouse effect. Consequently, many policy makers and groupings continue to disagree about the facts and the appreciation of the facts.

Nevertheless the Dutch government is convinced that it should act decisively. A concerted action by all ministries involved is needed to develop a comprehensive environmental policy. During the preparation of the first workshop it was, however, apparent that not all the governmental players used the same score. With respect to the policy life cycle, mentioned above, the various ministries involved place themselves at different phases in that process. One ministry is already in the allocation phase, while others are still in the aggregation or articulation phase. This makes coordination between these policy makers rather difficult and time consuming. The environmental policy context is not yet transparent. As scientists are not familiar with the policy making process, it makes it difficult for them to assess the impact of the ongoing research on policy making. "To whom should which results most appropriately be addressed?"

Response patterns of third parties To further illustrate the complexity of environmental policy making it should be realised that the policy life cycle is also influenced by third parties, such as industry and nongovernmental organizations. The cooperation of these third parties is necessary for the Dutch environmental policy to be successful. However, they have different opinions about environmental policy. Some leading-edge companies and industry sectors show a reactive response, defensively meeting governmental environmental policy making. Others show a receptive response, utilizing their existing production configurations to meet criteria set by the government. Some show a constructive response, accepting responsibility for their product (service). A very few are proactive, internalising the environmental challenge as an element of quality management.

Interferences The third parties (in the role of institutional actors) intervene in the subsequent phases of the policy life cycle by building coalitions with representatives of those ministries that express similar opinions regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. The first workshop has learned that in the Netherlands policy makers, third parties and scientific disciplines interpret the facts differently. Although all participants in the first workshop were very much involved in the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, their different perceptions when discussing key questions were noticeable. Apparently the major actors are not yet in the mood to look for shared purposes and strategies. This situation is interesting in the context of setting the stage for the third workshop at the end of this year.

Summary Interaction patterns between the policy makers and third parties during the first workshop have demonstrated the existence of various groups, which represent the different positions and perceptions of the major players in the field. They will participate in the third workshop, exploring and identifying viable policy options. In order to stimulate the participants to interact and communicate fruitfully with each other during that workshop, to produce a shared understanding of risks related to further growth of greenhouse gases emissions, various gaming techniques will be used.

References

Klabbers, J.H.G. 1982. Futures Research and Public Policy Making: A context of use for Systems Theory and Gaming. in: Kallen, D.B.P. et al. (eds.) Social Science Research and Public Policy Making, The NFER-Nelson Publishing Cy Ltd., Windsor, U.K.

Klabbers, J.H.G. 1985. Instruments for Planning and Policy Formation: Some Methodological Considerations. Simulation & Games, 16(2): 135-160.

Winsemius, P., and Guntram, U. 1991. Responding to the Environmental Challenge, McKinsey & Company, The Netherlands.

Back...