SESSION DESCRIPTIONS

(1)

1

Thor Heyerdahl Summer School in Environmental Governance

Course 2: June 25 – July 6, 2012:

Global Environmental Governance

SESSION DESCRIPTIONS

This note includes a short description of the lectures/seminars/group works of the course. It also includes a literature list divided in ‘Core’ and ‘Supplementary readings’. We have also included a list of ‘Preparatory readings’ – see the below lecture on ‘Environmental governance’. It is expected that students have gone through the ‘Core readings’ before the course starts. For those of you who are not too familiar with the literature on institutions and on governance, a few

‘Preparatory readings’ are also included. Internet links to many of the readings are offered.

Books are included in the ‘Preparatory readings’. For these you will need to utilize your library.

DAY 1 (June 25): INTRODUCTION

Welcome and round of presentation of participants (Monday June 25, 09.00 - 12.00):

In this session the program for and the format of the course will be presented. Participants will present themselves. Participants’ expectations concerning the course will be discussed.

Lecture (Monday June 25, 14.00 – 17.00): Introduction to environmental governance (Arild Vatn)

The aim of this lecture is to give an overview of the main concepts and theoretical perspectives included in the literature on environmental governance. Governance encompasses the processes that shape social priorities, how human coordination is facilitated and how conflicts are acknowledged and possibly resolved. In environmental governance the focus is on these issues as related to the use and protection of environmental resources. Governance is more than government. It encompasses actors such as communities, businesses and NGOs. It concerns furthermore, issues from the local to the global level. Hence, it involves the formulation of international treaties and national policies defining conditions for the activities of firms, households and individuals. It concerns action ‘on the ground’ where humans use environmental resources and themselves define local institutions regulating access and use.

In relation to this, the following concepts will be core: institutions, actors, resource regimes, governance structures, environmental governance systems, socio-ecological systems,

(2)

2

hybrid governance structures. Concerning theories, we will foremost visit institutional theory, theories of human action and the theory of socio-ecological systems.

Core readings:

Lemos, M.C. and A. Agrawal, 2006. Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 297–325. http://www-

personal.umich.edu/~arunagra/papers/publications/2006.%20Maria%20Carmen%20Lemos%20and%20Arun%20Agrawa l.%20%20Environmental%20Governance.pdf

Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Going Beyond Panaceas, Special Feature, 104(39):15181-15187.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000497/

Vatn, A., 2011. Environmental Governance – A Conceptualization. In Kjosavik, D. and P. Vedeld (eds.): The Political Economy of Environment and Development in a Globalized World.

Exploring the Frontiers. Trondheim, Tapir Academic Press, pp. 131-152.

Supplementary readings:

Paavola, J. and N. Adger, 2005. Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 53(3):353-368. http://www.china-sds.org/kcxfzbg/addinfomanage/lwwk/data/kcx375.pdf

Paavola, J., 2007. Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63, (1): 93-103 http://www.china-sds.org/kcxfzbg/addinfomanage/lwwk/data/kcx801.pdf

Vatn, A., 2005. Rationality, Institutions and Environmental Policy. Ecological Economics, 55(2):203-217. http://www.china-sds.org/kcxfzbg/addinfomanage/lwwk/data/kcx481.pdf

Preparatory readings for participants that are unfamiliar with the topics raised at the course:

The below books are some of several publications that discuss various core aspects of the issues raised in this course. Those of you that feel weak on the literature on environmental governance, international environmental politics and/or institutional theory more in general are advised to look at these entries. The two first are important for those who are not too familiar with the concrete issues that are core to international environmental governance. The two last are more focused at the theory. For those who do not have a strong background in social sciences/

institutional theory, my book on ‘Institutions and the Environment’ is hopefully helpful in clarifying concepts and core theoretical positions.

Chasek, P.S., D.L. Downie and J.W. Brown, 2010. Global Environmental Politics, 5^th revised edition. Westview Press.

Speth, J.G. and P.M. Haas, 2006. Global Environmental Governance. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Vatn, A., 2005. Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder (eds.), 2008. Institutions and Environ- mental Change, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Socializing after ended lecture (17.00 – 18.00)

(3)

3

DAY 2 (June 26): EARTH SYSTEM GOVERNANCE

Lecture (Tuesday June 26, 09.00 - 10.30): Planetary boundaries (Lars Bakken)

The invention of agriculture some 13000 years ago was a crucial event in the history of mankind, initiating an escalating development of our capacity to create wonderful things and to destroy our nature. For a few decades, industry/technology appeared to represent the main threat to the health of the environment, but today we start to realize that our Achilles heel will be food production.

Because food production is so terribly destructive, and so necessarily “invasive”. At least with the technologies we use to-day, and with the diet that most of us prefer (meat rather than vegetables). This is not new, but it appears that the lesson is hard to learn (recommended reading: Jarred Diamon’s two books “Collapse” and “Guns Germs and Steel”). My talk will primarily deal with the problematic perspectives of food production, why it will represent the most destructive footprint on this planet long into the future, and what we can possibly do to reduce its impact on the biogeochemical cycles (primarily the N- and P-cycle) and “wildlife”. I will also comment on the “curriculum” for this talk, which is the paper by Rokcström et al (Planetary Boundaries…), which is a strong warning that something very dramatic may happen very suddenly in the near future. In my view, something very “suddenly” (in a geological/evolu- tionary time perspective) is happening just now (= the last 13 000 years, or the last 50 years…).

Core readings

Hails, R.S., 2002. Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature, 418:685-688 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bt/Hails-Assessing-2002.pdf

Rockström et al (2009) Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.

Ecology and Society 14(2)32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/main.html

Trewavas, A., 2002. Malthus foiled again and again. Nature, 418:668-670

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01013.html

Supplementary readings and viewing:

Johan Rockstrom: Let the environment guide our development (Video)

http://www.ted.com/talks/johan_rockstrom_let_the_environment_guide_our_development.html

Read J Diamonds books, and view one of his talks on this video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

In addition, if you need deep time perspectives and a wonderfully optimistic view of our future in the universe, enjoy the talk by Martin Rees :

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_rees_asks_is_this_our_final_century.html

Lecture (Tuesday June 26, 11.00 - 12.30): The perspective of earth system governance (Frank Biermann)

In this lecture, Frank Biermann will outline the concept of earth system governance as a new political paradigm in times of transformations of the earth system and the dawn of the

(4)

4

“Anthropocene”. Biermann will then elaborate on the analytical framework of the international research programme “Earth System Governance Project”, and discuss with students the appropriateness of this framework. In the second part of the lecture, Biermann will present some of his own research projects in different areas of earth system governance.

Core readings

Biermann, Frank, Michele M. Betsill, S. Camargo Vieira, Joyeeta Gupta, Norichika Kanie, Louis Lebel, Diana Liverman, Heike Schroeder, Bernd Siebenhüner, and Ruben Zondervan.

2010. Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10: 4, 277-288.

http://www.agci.vu.nl/en/Images/Biermann%20et%20al%20%202010%20INEA%20ESG%20Research%20Framework_t cm143-191335.pdf

Biermann, Frank. 2012. Planetary Boundaries and Earth System Governance. Exploring the Links. Ecological Economics (published online first through Science Direct).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912000808

Supplementary readings

Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.-J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L.

Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P.

Crutzen, and J. A. Foley, 2009. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature, 461 (24 September 2009): 472–475. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Zalasiewicz, J., M. Williams, A. Smith, T. L. Barry, A. L. Coe, P. R. Brown, P. Brenchley, D.

Cantrill, A. Gale, P. Gibbard, F. J. Gregory, M. W. Hounslaw, A. C. Kerr, P. Pearson, R.

Knox, J. Powell, C. Waters, J. Marchall, M. Oates, P. Rawson, and P. Stone, 2008. Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18, no. 2: 4–8.

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/2/pdf/i1052-5173-18-2-4.pdf

Seminar (Tuesday June 26, 14.00 – 16.00): Institutional framework and sustainable development (Frank Biermann)

The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, held directly before this summer school, was meant to galvanize the international community to strong action and new initiatives, in line with the earlier summits of Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (1992). Biermann organized in 2011 a broader assessment of the state of knowledge in the field of global environmental governance, involving 32 internationally recognized experts. The results of this assessment led in March 2012 to an article in Science, calling for fundamental reforms of global environmental governance, and seven more specific and particularly urgent reform measures. Biermann will briefly discuss in this seminar the original reform proposal from this group of experts, and reflect in a seminar discussion with all students on the results of what governments agreed upon in early June in Rio de Janeiro.

(5)

5 Core readings

Biermann, Frank, Kenneth Abbott, Steinar Andresen, Karin Bäckstrand, Steven Bernstein, Michele M. Betsill, Harriet Bulkeley, Benjamin Cashore, Jennifer Clapp, Carl Folke, Aarti Gupta, Joyeeta Gupta, Peter M. Haas, Andrew Jordan, Norichika Kanie, Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská, Louis Lebel, Diana Liverman, James Meadowcroft, Ronald B.

Mitchell, Peter Newell, Sebastian Oberthür, Lennart Olsson, Philipp Pattberg, Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez, Heike Schroeder, Arild Underdal, Susana Camargo Vieira, Coleen Vogel, Oran R. Young, Andrea Brock, and Ruben Zondervan. 2012. Navigating the Anthropocene. Improving earth system governance. Science, vol. 335, no. 6074, 1306- 1307 (16 March). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1306.full

Biermann, F., 2012. Greening the United Nations Charter: World Politics in the Anthropocene.

Environment (May 2012, in press). (Available also as an earlier version as ESG Working Paper 21 at http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/publication/biermann-frank-greening-united-nations-charter)

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability. 2011. Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing. See http://www.un.org/gsp.

Group paper session (Tuesday June 26, 16.30 - 18.00): Introduction to the term paper process. Presentation of students’ own research.

In this session the plan for the production of group papers will be introduced. Each student will moreover be asked to present their research interests for other participants. As these presentations will have to be brief, we ask each participant to prepare a one page (max) summary of her/his research to be posted on the course web before the start of the coutse (instructions will be offered per e-mail). This summary must include name and contact details. A picture would also be great.

DAY 3 (June 27): FIT, INTERPLAY AND SCALE

Lecture (Wednesday June 27, 09.00 - 10.30): Fit, interplay and scale in environ- mental governance (Oran Young)

Among the most productive areas of research on environmental governance over the last two decades are those associated with the concepts of fit, interplay, and scale. Fit refers to the extent to which the attributes of regimes or governance systems are well-matched to the properties of the biophysical and socioeconomic settings in which they operate. Interplay is a matter of interactions between or among differentiable regimes. Scale refers to the extent to which major

(6)

6

propositions about the formation and performance of regimes can be scaled up/down across levels of social organization. This lecture summarizes some of the major findings arising from research on these themes and identifies interesting research questions for those interested in developing new knowledge regarding these matters and evaluating their implications for the achievement of effective environmental governance more generally.

Core readings

Young, Oran R., 2008. Institutions and Environmental Change: The Scientific Legacy of a Decade of IDGEC Research. In Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder (eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 3-45

Young, Oran R., Leslie A. King, and Heike Schroeder (eds.), 2008. Institutions and Environ- mental Change, Cambridge, MIT Press. Especially chapters 5-7 on ‘Fit. ‘Interplay’ and

‘Scale’ respectively

Lecture (Wednesday June 27, 11.00 - 12.30): Navigating the Sustainability Transi- tion: Governing Complex and Dynamic Socio-ecological Systems (Oran Young)

The period since about 1950 has witnessed a series of transformative changes that have moved us into a world of human-dominated ecosystems and given rise to a new era now widely known as the Anthropocene. What are the implications of the Holocene-Anthropocene transition for environmental governance? Among the most important factors to take into account in answering this question are the prospects of non-linear and often abrupt events, the connectedness of human-environment interactions on a global scale, and the dominant role of human actions. Key factors in building effective environmental governance systems under these conditions include:

(i) harnessing reflexivity, (ii) enhancing adaptive capacity, and (iii) improving ways to cope with uncertainty. This lecture explores strategies for designing environmental regimes to take these needs into account.

Core reading:

Young, O., 2012: Navigating the Sustainability Transition: Governing Complex and Dynamic Socioecological Systems. Forthcoming in Brousseau E., et al. eds., Global Environmental Commons: Analytical and Political Challenges in Building Governance Mechanisms.

Oxford University Press

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Ohlson and J. Norberg, 2005. Adaptive Governance of Socio-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30: 441-473.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

(7)

7

Group work(Wednesday June 27, 14.00 – 16.00): The concept of fit A description of this group work will be handed out during the course

Group paper session (Wednesday June 27, 16.30 – 18.00) Continuing presentations of participants’ own research.

DAY 4 (June 28): THE ENVIRONMENT IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

Lecture (Thursday June 28, 09.00 – 10.30): Environmental governance in a globalized economy (Arild Vatn)

This lecture will be focused on the relationships between a) economic institutions and economic policy more in general and b) institutions and policies aimed at reducing environmental impacts of economic activity. We will look both at the basic institutions of the economy and the role of the state. We will also cover some of the main institutions and organizations developed as part of the mulitilateral system for economic development built after World War II – e.g., the Bretton Woods institutions, the Washington consensus. In relation to that the concept of embedded liberalism and the turn towards a neoliberal policy will be explored. Similarly, the main institutions and organizations for environmental governance will be covered – mainly global and regional treaties. The main argument of the lecture is that environmental regulations are weak not least because they are crafted on top of an expansive economic system where these regulations to large an extent are subordinated to market principles.

Core readings

Bernstein, S. and M. Ivanova, 2007. Institutional Fragmentation and the Normative compromise in Global Environmental Governance: What Prospects for Re-Embedding? In Bernstein S.

and L.W. Pauly (eds.): Global Liberalism and Political Order. Toward a New Grand Compromise. Albany NY. State University of New York Press, pp. 161-185.

Vatn, A., 2012 (in press). Environmental Governance – the Aspect of Coordination. In Brousseau, E., T. Dedeurwaerdere, P.-A. Jouvet and M. Willinger (eds.): Governing Global Environ- mental Commons: Institutions, Markets, Social Preferences and Political Games. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

(8)

8 Supplementary readings

Bernstein, S., 2007. Introduction: Power, Social Purposes, and Legitimacy in Global Govern- ance. In Bernstein S. and L.W. Pauly (eds.): Global Liberalism and Political Order.

Toward a New Grand Compromise. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, pp.

3-22.

Chasek, P.S., D.L. Downie and J.W. Brown, 2010. Global Environmental Politics, 5^th revised edition. Westview Press.

Heinberg, R., 2011. The End of Growth. Adapting to Our New Economic Reality. Gabriola Islands: New Society Publishers.

Jackson , T. 2009. Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. London:

Earthscan

Lecture (Thursday June 28, 11.00 – 12.30): Political Discourse, International Governance and Sustainability (Clive Spash)

Sustainability arose as a concept for international governance in the late 1980s as a means of reconciling the environment and development. This can be seen as a challenge to the environmental discourse of biophysical limits and a move towards envisioning economic growth as compatible with increasing environmental quality. Internationally sustainability was also promoted as an important new way of thinking about poverty reduction. Various political discourses can be identified as being behind this move and the ensuing international policy.

These include often competing ideas such as appeals to administrative rationalism, inclusive participation and unregulated markets. Over time sustainability, as an environmental discourse and means of empowering the poor, has been compromised by the spread of market liberalism which has become ever stronger. Today the discourse within the international community is dominated by the idea that markets will cure all ills and unrestrained economic growth can be Green. The conflict is one between laissez-faire global liberalism and the role of interventionist state power in the struggle to maintain political stability and economic order.

Core readings

Ruggie, J.G., 2007. Global markets and global governance: The prospects for convergence. In:

Bernstein, S.F., W, P.L. (Eds.), Global Liberalism and Political Order: Toward a New Grand Compromise? State University of New York Press, New York, pp. 23-48.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a post- Brundtland world. Ecol. Econ. 57, 253-268.

http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/t/tbensel/ES350F2007/Sustainable%20Development%20in%20a%20Post- Bruntland%20World.pdf

Bernstein, S.F., Ivanova, M., 2007. Institutional fragmentation and normative compromise in global environmental governance: What prospect for re-embedding?, In: Bernstein, S.F., W,

(9)

9

P.L. (Eds.), Global Liberalism and Political Order: Toward a New Grand Compromise?

State University of New York Press, New York, pp. 161-185.

Preparatory readings for participants that are unfamiliar with the topic:

Dryzek, J.S., 2005. “Environmentally benign growth: What is sustainable development?”

Chapter 7 in The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford pp.145-161. http://jmsc.hku.hk/courses/ccgl9012spring2012/files/2012/03/Dryzek-sustainability.pdf

Group paper session (Thursday June 28, 14.00 - 16.00) Group formation, term paper ideas development

Group paper session (Thursday June 28, 16.30 – 18.00) Group formation, term paper ideas development (cont.)

DAY 5 (June 29): FUNDAMENTALS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

Lecture (Friday June 29, 09.00 – 10.30): How to understand international negoti- ations? Realists vs. constructivists (Ole Jacob Sending)

The study of international cooperation in the discipline of international relations typically departs from the view of states as unitary actors who advance their “national” interests vis a vis each other in international settings. The lecture will offer an overview of the different theoretical perspectives on international cooperation and negotiations, focusing in particular on realism, rationalism, and constructivism. Realism sees states as seeking power and security above all, with an emphasis on material factors. Rationalism sees states as utility maximizers that balance economic with security interests. Constructivist approaches privileges ideational factors and identity, and are agnostic about what types of interests states advance. The lecture will go through each of these perspectives on why states do and do not cooperate, how each perspective may unpack negotiation dynamics, and will offer insights into emerging insights in the discipline about the importance of recognition dynamics for understanding international negotiations and – more generally – cooperation.

(10)

10 Core reading

Hopf, Ted, 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23 (1): 171-200.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/TedHopfPromiseofConstructivisminIRTheory.pdf

Adler, Emmanuel, 2002. Constructivism in International Relations. In Carlsnaes, W et al. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, pp. 95-117

Baldwin, David, 1993. Introduction. In Baldwin, David (ed.), Neoliberalism and Neorealism Columbia University Press.

Ringmar, Erik, 2002. The Recognition Game. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(2): 115–136

http://cac.sagepub.com/content/37/2/115.full.pdf+html

Snidal, Duncan, 2002. Rational Choice in International Relations. In Carslnaes W. et al (eds.) Handbook of International Relations, pp. 73-92

Lecture (Friday June 29, 11.00 – 12.30): Power and governance (Darley J. Kjosavik)

This lecture seeks to grapple with the many dimensions and understandings of the concept of power in social theory and how it has been deployed for understanding socio-economic regimes of governance. Since Foucault, power is understood as an omnipresent category and governance is the exercise of power in different forms by different actors and interest groups including the state. Environmental governance is an arena where overt and covert forms of power operate at local, national and international/global levels. Studies have shown that power plays an important role in the success of environmental regimes. Some of these issues will be discussed in the lecture inorder to understand the current workings of power in the practice of environmental governance, through the mirror of the historical, material and political elements that constitute these regimes of governance.

Core readings:

Newell, Peter, 2008. ‘The Political Economy of Global Environmental Governance’, Review of International Studies, (34) (3): 507-529.

Barnett, Michael and Duvall, Raymond, 2005. Power in global governance, In: Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds.), Power in Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32.

Avelino, Flor and Rotmans, Jan, 2009. ‘Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Framework to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12 (4):

543-569.

http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/18412/Avelino%2520and%2520Rotmans,%2520Power%2520in%2520transition.pdf

(11)

11

Mitchell, Ronald B., 2010. International Politics and the Environment, London: Sage (chapters 3 and 5).

Breitmeier, Helmut; Underdal, Arild and Young, Oran R., 2011. ‘The Effectiveness of Environmental Regimes: Comparing and Contrasting Findings from Quantitative Research’, International Studies Review, (13) 4: 579-605.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01045.x/abstract

Hurrell, Andrew, 2005. Power, institutions, and the production of inequality, In: Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds), Power in Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32-58.

Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha, 2005. The power of liberal international organizations, In: Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds), Power in Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-184 .

Shaffer, Gregory, 2005. Power, governance, and the WTO: a comparative institutional approach, In: Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds), Power in Global Governance, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 130 – 160.

Seminar (Friday June 29, 14.00 – 16.00): Justice in environmental governance (Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam)

The purpose of this seminar is to critically examine philosophical approaches to environmental justice and environmental governance and broaden the theoretical canvas by focusing on the larger political economic questions of power relations and social justice at different levels from the global to the local. The seminar will open with a presentation of these issues by drawing on the core readings and raising some theoretical issues regarding different conceptions of environmental justice with a view to initiate an open debate.

Core readings

Ikeme, J., 2003. Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches in climate change politics. Global Environmental Change, 13:195-206

Schlosberg, D., 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 1(3):517-549 http://astepback.com/EVSS695/Reconcieving%20EJ.pdf

Robbins, P., 2004, Environmental identity and social movement. In Robbins, P.: Political Ecology – A critical introduction. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 187 – 201.

Bond, P., 2012, Politics of Climate Justice. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press Sen, A., 2009. Introduction. In Sen A., The Idea of Justice. Penguin Books, pp. 1-27,

Shanmugaratnam, N. 1991, Sustainable Development and Social justice – Theoretical challenges and responses. Reprinted in Kjosavik D.J. and P. Vedeld (eds.), 2011, The Political

Economy of Environment and Development in a Globalised World. Tapir Academic Press, pp. 67-90

Group paper session (Friday June 27, 16.30 – 18.00)

(12)

12 Groups start working on group paper outline

DAY 6 (June 30): MARKETS IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Lecture (Saturday June 30, 09.00 – 11.30): ): Climate change – the rise of markets (Clive Spash)

The response to human induced climate change has moved from regulated limits to taxation to markets for trading carbon. This lecture explores the last of these regulatory shifts. The development of both formal and informal markets now extends worldwide and is worth billions.

However, the impact on greenhouse gas reduction has been negligible while the problems created appear considerable. Trading carbon in markets is best explained in terms of the political economy of modern society. This lecture covers the problems it faces and false hopes it offers moving from the economic justifications to the psychological and ethical impacts on individuals.

Core readings

Spash, C. L. 2010. The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. New Political Economy 15 (2):169-195. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19114/

http://sciencestage.com/v/31697/the-brave-new-world-of-carbon-trading.html (Video)

Supplementary reading

Gilbertson, Tamara, and Oscar Reyes. 2009. Carbon Trading: How It Works and Why It Fails.

Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23494095/Carbon-Trading-How- it-works-and-why-it-fails

Seminar (Saturday June 30, 11.00 – 12.30): Markets for ecological services (Arild Vatn)

This seminar will be oriented at a discussion of the general move toward increased use of markets and market languages in protecting environmental resources. Markets have increasingly taken over for traditional conservation policies. In the introduction to the seminar both theoretical and empirical analyses will be included. The former is oriented towards clarifying the differences between markets (Coase), traditional conservation policies, and the use of standard economic policies (a la Pigou). The empirical analysis is directed towards a study of present market based governance structures for environmental resources – e.g., PES, CDM, and offsets.

In this part emphasis is on the legitimacy of markets, their implication for rights distribution, their efficiency – i.e., transaction costs – and the way they changes motivation structures among agents.

(13)

13 Core readings

Corbera, E., K. Brown and W.N. Adger, 2007. The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Development and Change, 38(4):587-613.

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Equity%20and%20Legitimacy%20of%20Markets.pdf

Vatn, A., D. Barton and S. Movik (unpublished). Can markets protect ecosystems? An earlier draft of the paper was presented at the ESEE 2011 conference ‘Advancing Ecological Economics. Theory and Practice’.

BBOP, 2009. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. Washington D.C. http://bbop.forest- trends.org/guidelines/odh.pdf

Bäckstrand, K., 2006. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment, 16:290-306.

http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/2006%20-%20Backstrand%20-%20Multi- stakeholder%20partnerships%20for%20sustainable%20development.pdf

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issue. Ecological Economics, 65:663-674.

Gibbons, P. and D. B. Lindenmayer, 2007. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management & Restoration, 8(1):26-31

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00328.x/pdf

Vatn, A., D.N. Barton, H. Lindhjem, S. Movik, I. Ring and R. Santos, 2011. Can markets protect biodiversity. An evaluation of financial mechanisms. Noragric Report No. 60. Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB, 94 pp. http://www.umb.no/noragric/article/noragric-reports-2011/

DAY 7 (July 2): REGIMES AND REGIME EFFECTIVE- NESS

Lecture (Monday July 2, 09.00 – 10.30): Regime effectiveness: concepts and measurements(Arild Underdal)

A regime can be considered ‘effective’ to the extent that it successfully performs a certain function or solves the problem(s) that motivated its establishment. Although now widely accepted as a point of departure, this definition leads into a suite of measurement challenges. In this lecture I will examine the most important of these challenges and outline possible solutions.

In the final section I will consider consequences beyond problem-solving in the narrow sense, notably regime effects on domestic politics, the international political system, or ‘world culture’.

Core readings

(14)

14

Mitchell, R.B., 2008: Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Institutions: What to Evaluate and How to Evaluate It? Chapter 3 in O.R. Young, L.A. King, and H. Schroeder (eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 79 - 114.

Supplementary reading

The three-article dialogue between J. Hovi/D.F. Sprinz/A.Underdal and O.R. Young in Global Environmental Politics, vol. 3 (2003), no. 3, pp. 74-107.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/glep/3/3

Lecture (Monday July 2, 11.00 – 12.30): Regime effectiveness – explanation and design (Arild Underdal)

This lecture addresses two questions. First, why are some international environmental regimes more effective than others? I will introduce a fairly simple ‘core model’, explore how it can be modified or extended, and briefly review available evidence from some major studies. Second, how can regimes be designed to enhance their effectiveness? Here, I begin by pleading for an approach that relates ‘cures’to‘diagnoses’. I move on to consider a small set of ‘design principles’ that seem consistent with conclusions emerging from empirical research and/or formal modeling.

Core reading

Breitmeier, H., A. Underdal, and O.R. Young, 2011. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Comparing and Contrasting Findings from Quantitative Research’. International Studies Review, 13(4):579-605.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01045.x/full

Supplementary reading:

Young. O.R., 2008. Building Regimes for Socioecological Systems: Institutional Diagnostics’.

Chapter 4 in O.R. Young, L.A. King, and H. Schroeder (eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press., pp. 115 – 144.

Seminar (Monday July 2, 14.00 – 16.00): Regime effectiveness – empirical examples (Steinar Andresen)

Considering there have been two theoretical lectures given on this topic, the purpose of this session is to add some more ‘flesh and blood’ to these lectures through providing extensive empirical examples. Emphasis will also be given to strong interaction with the students. Most emphasis will be given to the climate regime, but other global as well as regional agreements pertaining to air, oceans and biodiversity will be presented and discussed as well. We will see that there are strong variations in effectiveness between these regimes and this can be explained in various ways. A main argument in this session will be that it is exceedingly difficult to

(15)

15

measure – in empirical terms – the exact degree of effectiveness caused by the various international regimes due to the extensive interaction between the regime, the problem at hand and other factors.

Core readings

See the literature for Underdal’s lectures

Andresen, S., E.L. Boasson and G. Hønneland, 2012. Ideals and practice in international environmental politics. In Andresen, S., E.L Boasson and G Hønneland, International Environmental Agreements, Routledge, pp. 173-191.

Group paper session (Monday June 27, 16.30 – 18.00) Groups continue working on term paper outline

DAY 8 (July 3): STUDYING CLIMATE CHANGE – AN EXAMPLE OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Climate variability and future climate change impacts will increase the vulnerability of societies around the world. Studying climate change and the different responses to climate change requires cooperation within the scientific community of both the natural, social and human sciences.

Different disciplines frame the problems associated with climate change in a diverse ways. We present a theoretical explanation for the need for transdisciplinary research in the area of climate and development, followed by two examples that highlight the challenges of transdisciplinary research focused on adaptation to climate change.

Lecture (Tuesday July 3, 09.00 – 11.00): The need for transdisciplinarity – a theoret- ical perspective (Asunción Lera St. Clair)

Introduction to the disagreements about climate change framings and the framings of the solutions proposed. Presentation of the current debates on the limits of natural sciences and the need for engaging the social and the human sciences. Presentation of the need for as well as the challenges of interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research using the example climate and development.

Core readings

(16)

16

Hulme, M (2010) Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge UP, Chapter 1 pp 1-34.

O’Brien, K., A.L. St Clair and B. Kristoffersen, 2010. The Framing of Climate Change. In O’Brien, K., A.L. St Clair and B. Kristoffersen (eds.): Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1

O’Brien, K., A.L. St Clair and B. Kristoffersen, 2010. Towards a New Science for Climate Change. In O’Brien, K., A.L. St Clair and B. Kristoffersen (eds.): Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 12

Lecture (Tuesday July 3, 11.30 – 12.30): Examples of transdisciplinary climate research (Karianne de Bruin)

To illustrate some of the issues raised in the theoretical lecture on transdisciplinarity, two case studies will be presented:

- Local coastal adaptation in the Netherlands, where the challenge lies in dealing with uncertainty from different perspectives (economic, social and political)

- Himalayan Climate Change Adaptation Programme (HICAP)

Core readings

See readings for A.L. St. Clair.

ICIMOD, 2009. Local responses to too much and too little water in the Greater Himalayan Region. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, ICIMOD, 2011. Himalayan Climate Change Adaptation Program. Leaflet. International Centre

for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal,

De Bruin, K., 2011. Local coastal adaptation to climate change uncertainty: application of an investment decision model. In De Bruin, K.: An economic analysis of adaptation to climate change under uncertainty. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University, the Netherlands, Page 107-139.

Group work (Tuesday July 3, 14.00 – 16.00): Adaptation to climate change. Led by A.L. St. Claire and K. de Bruin

Challenges of working on a project on adaptation to climate change within a transdisciplinary setting. Groups of students have different roles/come from different disciplines that need to work together to conduct research on setting priorities for adaptation to climate change.

Term paper session (Tuesday July 3, 16.30 – 18.00) Groups continue working on term paper outline

(17)

17

DAY 9 (July 4): INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Lecture (Wednesday July 4, 09.00 – 10.30): Boundary walking, boundary crossing and additive magic: the doing of interdisciplinary research (K. H.

Sørensen)

The lecture will present and discuss approaches to the analysis and understanding of interdisciplinary work. To some scholars, interdisciplinarity is mainly a label used to provide funding or representing the process through which new disciplines are being formed. To others, it is designating a new research practice. A prominent example is Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny and others’ idea about Mode 2 research based on transdisciplinarity. Scholars like Julie Thompson Klein and Marilyn Strathern employ concepts such as boundary walking and boundary crossing to emphasize often individual strategies of doing interdisciplinarity. The lecture will provide a critical overview of these attempts, pointing to the observation that actual interdisciplinary research practices are quite varied. Some of the varieties will be identified and discussed in the final part.

Core readings

Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman, R., J. Thompson Klein, C. Mitcham, and J. B. Holbrook (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 15 – 30.

Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons, 2003. Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41 (3): 179-194. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w483436362tp5725/

Weingart, P., 2000. Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse. In Weingart, P. and N. Stehr (eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 25-43.

Seminar (Wednesday July 4, 11.00 – 12.30): Communication challenges in interdisciplinary research (Knut H. Sørensen)

The seminar will focus on communication challenges in interdisciplinary research. Disciplines and specialties develop their own particular ways of communicating, including concepts, standard references and methodology. The resulting differences represent challenges to interdisciplinary research. These challenges may be met in several ways. One traditional approach is the polytechnical one, which means that scholars/professionals acquire some knowledge from other fields/disciplines. Another way is to draw upon common bodies of knowledge acquired during early periods of study. Other communication strategies may involve the use of pidgin type language or boundary objects. In the seminar, we will discuss

(18)

18

communication challenges and ways to cope with them, including pros and cons regarding the different strategies.

Core readings See lecture

Supplementary readings Se lecture

Group work (Tuesday July 4, 14.00 – 16.00): Planning an interdisciplinary project.

Led by Knut H. Sørensen

The intention with the group work is to elaborate practical implications of the previous lecture and seminar. It will focus on strategies for designing an interdisciplinary research project. The groups will be asked to discuss when interdisciplinarity is appropriate, and what kind of interdisciplinarity that should be employed. Further, the groups will be asked to reflect upon issues like division of labor in the project, concerns with respect to communication and group dynamics, and scholarly dynamics with regard to the scientific outcome.

Term paper session (Wednesday June 29, 16.30 – 18.00) Groups continue working on term paper outline and content

DAY 10 (July 5): LINKING ACROSS

Seminar (Thursday July 5, 09.00 – 10.00): Reflecting on the underlying models of human action (A. Vatn)

During the course you have been ‘exposed to’ different models and assumptions about human action. As this is a core issue of environmental governance, this seminar will be organized around a reflection about the different models and the implications of choice of models for the focus and outcomes of our analyses of governance issues.

Core readings

March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen, 1998. The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.

International Organization 52(4):943–69. http://courses.washington.edu/ppm504/MarchOlson_IO_98.pdf

(19)

19

Sending, O.J., 2002. Constitution, Choice and Change: Problems with the `Logic of Appropriate- ness' and its Use in Constructivist Theory. European Journal of International Relations, 8(4):443-470. http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/8/4/443.full.pdf+html

Bowles, S. 2008. Policies Designed for Self-Interested Citizens May Undermine “The Moral Sentiments”: Evidence from Economic Experiments. Science, 320:1605-1609

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1605.full

Müller, H., 2004. Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations. European Journal of

International Relations, 10(3):395–435 http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/10/3/395.short

Vatn, A., 2009. Cooperative behavior and institutions. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38:188-196.

http://www.esee2009.si/papers/Vatn%20-%20Cooperative%20behavior.pdf

Group work (Thursday July 5, 10.30 – 12.30): What are the main take home messages?

In this group work session participants are asked to summarize their main take home messages.

There will be specific focus on comparing different positions, theories and perspectives.

Term paper session (Thursday July 5, 14.00 – 16.00)

Groups continue working on term paper outline and content. Prepare presentation on Friday

Term paper session (Thursday July 5, 16.30 – 18.00)

Groups continue working on term paper outline and content. Prepare presentation on Friday

DAY 11 (July 6): SUMMING UP

Presentation of group paper outlines (Friday July 6, 09.00 – 10.30)

Each group will give a short presentation of the outline of their paper. Time will also be allocated to comments from the floor.

Presentation of group paper outlines (Friday July 6, 11.00 – 12.00) As above

(20)

20

Summing up including school evaluation (Friday July 6, 12.00 – 12.30)