Miranda Boettcher Research Associate Climate Engineering in Science, Society and Politics

1. Cracking the Climate Engineering Governance Code How discursive structures can inform the anticipatory development of a Code of Conduct for Climate Engineering Research Miranda Boettcher Research Associate Climate Engineering in Science, Society and Politics Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS)

2. Background • Governance challenges • Past developments • A Code of Conduct • Cracking the Code

4. “The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues” Royal Society (2009)

5. Background • Whatisclimateengineering? • What is the right term—and what is the right level of aggregation? • All-encompassing umbrella terms, sub-categorizations, individual proposals? • What’s in, what’s out? • Why does it matter for governance?

6. Background • Whatisclimateengineering? • Summary: The way technologies are defined and conceptualized affects the way they are governed. • The way they are governed affects the way technologies are, in turn, further conceptualized and developed. • Language matters!

7. Background • What is governance? • Regulation vs. governance • Bottom-up vs. top down • Hard vs. soft law • Binding vs. voluntary • Restrictive vs. enabling

8. Background • What is governance? • Summary: The term “governance” used in the field of climate engineering to refer a wide range of concepts. • Fuzziness of the term can lead to miscommunication about the “governance” of climate engineering. • Language matters!

9. Governance challenges • Why govern climate engineering? (Restricting) • Slippery slope • Moral hazard • Vested interests • Termination effect • Rogue actors • Differing national interests • Attribution problems

10. Governance challenges • Why govern climate engineering? (Enabling) • Transparency • Coordination • Mission definition • Quality control • Legitimacy

11. Governance challenges • Why govern climate engineering? • Summary: Governance of climate engineering could entail restricting “undesirable” behaviour and/or enabling “desirable” behaviour. • “Desirable” and “undesirable” behaviour remain to be defined as part of a wider societal debate.

12. Governance challenges • How to govern climate engineering? • Sub-national, national, international, supranational • Fragmented vs. centralized • Consensus vs. majority • Public participation

13. Governance challenges • How to govern climate engineering? • Summary: There is no one-size-fits-all solution for how to govern climate engineering. • Different types of climate engineering activities require anticipatory, adaptive governance mechanisms.

14. Pastdevelopments • Existing governance principles • Customary international law • National laws • Subnational mechanisms • Informal principles

15. Pastdevelopments • International treaty regimes • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP) • The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

16. Pastdevelopments • Summary: Climate engineering is not emerging within a governance vacuum. • Some existing governance principles apply, although how actors interpret their various obligations in light of climate engineering is not yet clear.

17. Pastdevelopments • Governance lessons learned from experiments • Ocean Iron Fertilization (LOHAFEX) • Marine Cloud Brightening (E-PEACE) • Solar Radiation Management (SPICE)

18. Pastdevelopments • Governance lessons learned from experiments: Ocean Iron Fertilization (LOHAFEX) • Conflict between freedom of research and environmental protection norms • Demonstrated the value of independent assessment

19. Pastdevelopments • Governance lessons learned from experiments: Marine Cloud Brightening (E-PEACE) • Concerns about “climate engineering by another name” • Raised questions about what sorts of experiments should be labelled climate engineering for governance purposes

20. Pastdevelopments • Governance lessons learned from experiments: Solar Radiation Management (SPICE) • Conflict of interest allegations and stakeholder concerns • Demonstrated the value of transparency and early stakeholder engagement to address ethical, legal, social & political concerns Courtesy of Hugh Hunt

21. Pastdevelopments • Summary: • Even experiments which pose no environmental risk can raise governance concerns • Engagement between scientists, policymakers and stakeholders is essential to the development of anticipatory, adaptive CE research governance • Governance and research are co-evolving within a complex discourse – language matters!

22. A Code ofConduct • Aims to provide practical guidance on the responsible conduct of CE research • Participatory development via expert review, semi-structured stakeholder interviews, an open call for comments and workshops http://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/

23. Cracking the Code • Mapping discursive structures underlying US, UK & German governance policy experts’ reactions to the Code • Drawing out the implications of these discursive patterns for anticipatory governance development http://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/

24. Cracking the Code • (Post)Structural Discourse Theory: • A discourse is an underlying system of concepts and practices that constitutes the phenomena of which it speaks • The systematic relationships between discursive elements can be reconstructed • Discursive structure defines what constitutes legitimate knowledge and shapes whose knowledge matters

25. Cracking the Code: • Science & Technology Studies: • Understanding how scientific knowledge, technology and societal structures ‘co-produce’ each other by tracing: • The emergence and stabilization of new techno-scientific objects and framings • The processes by which the products of techno-science become intelligible across boundaries

26. Cracking the Code • Govern what? Objects • What is governance? Terms • Why govern? Rationales • Who governs? Speaker positions

27. Cracking the Code • Govern what? Objects • What is being constructed as the object(s) which should (not) be governed (by the Code)?

28. http://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/

29. Example of external differentiation based on intent: • Despite the fact that the two sets of technologies have different risk profiles, the character and intent of both sets of technologies remain the same – purposeful or intentional intervention into the climate system to mitigate the effects of climate change” (Interviewee 09, emphasis added) • Example of internal specification based on scale and effect: • “Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is less controversial, actions and impacts are more localized: Association with the term climate engineering tends to imply all CDR approaches have the same or similar transboundary governance issues as solar radiation management (SRM), which is not the case. Especially land-based CDR does not require novel international governance” (Interviewee 22, emphasis added)

30. Cracking the Code • Govern what? • Governance implications • External differentiation based on the intent = heterogeneous governance object = one-size-fits-all governance • Internal specification based on scale & effect = plural governance objects = tailor-made governance

31. Cracking the Code • What is governance? Terms • How is the term governance being defined (in relation to the Code)?

33. Example of positioning governance concept on the functional and spatial spectrums: • “Governance should be national and international. I don't see - I mean, I think that if you don't have national guidelines, you know, the full gambitfrom voluntary guidelines to more robust sort of forms of binding governance, um, at the national level, then the sub-national actors will back-fill it, and then you get a chaotic environment which is not good. […].” (Interviewee 18, Emphasis added)

34. Cracking the Code • What is governance? • Governance implications • Binding +(sub)national= legislation • Non-binding +(sub)national= scientific self governance • Binding + transnational = international agreement • Non-binding + transnational= international guidelines

36. Cracking the Code • Why govern? Rationales • What demand rationales are structuring calls for CE research governance?

42. Cracking the Code • Why govern? • Governance implications • Heterogeneous demand constellation + (slight) predominance of normative rationales = strongly polycentric, democratic governance

44. Cracking the Code • Who governs? Speaker Positions • What authoritative speaker positions are available within the CE governance discourse?

48. Cracking the Code • Who governs? • Governance implications • Helping stakeholders engage in the governance debate more consistently and consciously • Suggesting roadmap for specialisation of governance roles

49. Summary: Discursive structures • Govern what? Governance object formation underpinned by patterns of external differentiation based on intent and internal specification based on scale/effect of CE activities • What is governance? Heterogeneous ‘governance’ terms all situated within a shared conceptual space bounded by a spatial (local to transnational) and a functional (restrictive to enabling) dimension. • Why govern? Three central narrative logics structuring calls for CE governance: Functional (economic), strategic (politics) and normative (ethics) • Who governs? Three speaker positions identified, each associated with specific types of social actors: Principled gatekeeper (civil society), Responsible information provider (scientists), Strategic controller (political decision makers)

50. Summary: Governance implications • Govern what? Governance based on intent of CE activities should be broad and adaptive, governance based on scale/effect should be narrow and specific • What is governance? CEgovernance should be reflectively positioned both spatially and functionally: Multi-layered CE research governance is appropriate to the on-going heterogeneous definitional debate • Why govern? Polycentric, democratic governance structures focused on enhancing legitimacy and inclusiveness may be best suited to the current demand constellation • Who governs? Reflexively engaging with the speaker positions available within the CE governance debate can inform the specification of governance roles for a range of social actors