12/10/2017 Thoughts on the necessary change to a low to zero carbon economy (eventually) - MAPS : MAPS

Search

Developing countries exploring pathways to climate compa bility

Home About Us Projects Outputs Research Themes Country Results Whats Next Contact

Blogs

Blogs Thoughts on the necessary change to a low to zero carbon economy (eventually)
Throughout the world there are now numerous processes at na onal and sub-na onal levels planning emissions reduc ons, considering
Briefs the green economy, or preparing contribu ons for the Paris COP. One of the things that comes up repeatedly when discussing these
processes is the issue of process design. By this I mean the way you prepare the way the process will be conducted who par cipates,
Papers what the sequence of the process will be, what data will be generated and used, what the outcomes are, and so on. In each of the MAPS
processes in La n America these issues came up and were hugely important. I wont traverse them all here (we are wri ng a more meaty
Presenta ons analysis for an upcoming MAPS Book), but I hope these random thoughts are helpful.

Videos People assume quite correctly that process is important in projects of this nature, and naturally wish to include stakeholders in the
process itself. Its natural to want stakeholders to be present in processes but o en big mistakes are made in both process design and
Books stakeholder choice, stakeholder mo va on, stakeholder input and outputs, and so on. And once you have made these choices you have
to live with them! Really bad ones can invalidate an en re project. But avoiding the process choices, and just producing the project from a
Workshops research desk, risks no-one paying much a en on to it (even if its rather good/blindingly excellent).

I think the rst ques on one should ask is why do I need stakeholders in this process? What do I want to get from them, and possibly
more importantly, what did they get out of being there and contribu ng their me? Its really important I think to consider the mo va on
of stakeholders. What will bring them to the table? What will mo vate them and keep them at the table? How will they feel sa sed that
they have both given input that has been respected and is usable, and have received something in return? And in the case of those who
represent high carbon interests (and boy, there will be a few of these), what do they bring to the table other than simple protec onism?

Governments strongly mandated our MAPS processes, which in itself is a magnate for stakeholder involvement. In contrast a pure
research process that is not mandated by government has no real pull to get stakeholders present unless they will think there is some
poten al to inuence change. That case must be made, somehow. Stakeholders dont want to be on the menu; they want to be cooking in
the kitchen, but not at a local diner. Some processes have been successful in conferring on themselves Michelin status, and so pull
stakeholders and inuence outcomes. But equally a government process can pull in stakeholders who simply want to legi mize their
interests in the poli cal economy, guard their right to emit, disguise their denialism, and undermine any ambi on towards the truly
green economy. The point is made by Naomi Klein: It is our great collec ve misfortune that the scien c community made its decisive
diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when an elite minority was enjoying more unfe ered poli cal, cultural, and
intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s. This elite minority may come to dominate stakeholder par cipa on it will suit
them to be there! At the same me they are profoundly important to the planning of the future, and they are o en the largest taxpayers,
so they cannot be absent either. I will have more to say about this discreet and serious problem in our upcoming book.

We in MAPS learnt that this type of project is likely to inuence if it is credible, legi mate and salient. Stakeholder involvement should be
planned to strengthen all three these pillars. So, for example: if a desktop study is highly credible due to its writers esteem, then
stakeholdership will not really add value; if full legi macy is conferred on the desktop study the same applies. A good example is the IPCC.
Honestly, I have learnt that a default towards stakeholder par cipa on, or a very generalized approach, does more harm than good. But if
you get it right, it adds huge value: condence in government that it can act with support; predictability for business, agreement on data,
and so on.

I now want to deal with two dis nct ques ons. First, a choice exists between asking stakeholders to give inputs which would determine
outcomes in a research process (ie they agree inputs and assump ons which are then u lized by researchers without altera on) or to
consider outputs from research which is expert driven? Put dierently, do we want them to co-produce knowledge or validate it? This
raises the next ques on: where do we want the stakeholders in the sequence of the process? At the beginning to give input or some point
in the middle to receive output? The second ques on is: which stakeholders do we want in this sequence? And are they the same
throughout? i.e. are their phases to the sequence when the stakeholders will change? We may want stakeholders that are experts, and
are likely to contribute technical knowledge. Or we may want interest driven stakeholders that represent cons tuencies of interest. Or we
want both.

I need to say a word about stakeholders and conict. In the case of interest-based stakeholders, as against expert-based stakeholders, we
should expect high degrees of conict of interests as well as values. In the case of expert stakeholders we should expect rela ve degrees
of conict over data. Data conicts (those gures for technology learning are wrong, mine are be er) are best resolved by data
resolu on processes such as agreements to refer to interna onal literature and so on; sensi vity analyses and other forms of spectra of
results/scenarios/alterna ves could also help to resolve data conicts. They should be the easiest conicts to resolve. Interest-based
conicts (you will kill our industry if you impose that degree of emissions limita on) may require facilitators who are skilled at resolving
such conicts; they are certainly tougher to deal with. Value-based conicts (I dont like nuclear energy) are impossible to resolve and
should simply be sidestepped by being agnos c to value dierences, and studying all permuta ons.

The type of stakeholders we choose gives us a dierent mix of conicts. Although we fear this conict, the mere presence of conict is in
fact good for the process, as it builds credibility (a lot of dierent people agree to result x, hence its valued for policy makers) but this
means we need to manage how much conict we can deal with in a given me/budget etc.

So we have made two large choices: the sequencing and use of stakeholders and the iden ty of stakeholders. Remember that the
selec on of target audience will also impact the stakeholder iden ca on choices. For example: a steer regarding the poli cal economy
may be more important to Ministers than a xa on with the data minu ae: two dierent sets of stakeholders en rely, also a dierent
sequence. So the dierence between a mi ga on rst and a development rst approach to the process will have a large impact on
design and stakeholder choice.

http://mapsprogramme.org/outputs/thoughts-on-the-necessary-change-to-a-low-to-zero-carbon-economy-eventually/ 1/2
12/10/2017 Thoughts on the necessary change to a low to zero carbon economy (eventually) - MAPS : MAPS
My nal word for this blog is to be cau ous and weigh up what it will cost against what poten al the choices have to build on the three
pillars of eec veness: credibility, relevance and legi macy. There is no end to the amount of choices one has in designing process, and
given the mammoth climate challenge we face coupled with the strong reali es that exist in society right now, its a tough act to get a
process just right, and in so doing giving it the leverage to create real change.

Stef Raubenheimer is the Execu ve Director of the MAPS Programme

3 Comments, post your comment ...

1. In a hugely populated and diverse economy like India, where any process is beaten- up even before it takes o, I think
the MAPS approach would work wonders. Can we bring it to India?

Comment by Gayathri govind 8th January 2016 @ 10:29

2. I think the problem facing humans in terms of climate change and green house gas emission is lack of plan prior the
process of increasing energy supply capacity. For example, considering a country like Nigeria with a huge popula on
and great drive to increase energy (electricity) genera on capacity. With no plan to mi gate the possible dire eects of
such intense carbon foot-print, I think MAPS / MAPS strategy is needed in Nigeria now. The thing is, human wait for
situa on to turn bad before they sort for solu on. MAPS can really be part of Nigeria climate change mi ga on
strategy.

Comment by John Emile Osiri 15th March 2016 @ 14:09

3. MAPs experiment would be a star ng point for building pathways to bring about mindset change in India . India being a
very diverse country which polarises around the basic issues of employment genera on,food distribu on and improving
provision of medical/ health facili es would work well with this model .

Comment by saroj Datar 16th September 2016 @ 11:29

Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Tag Cloud Useful Links

Agriculture All BASIC Blogs Brazil Briefs CDKN Chile Colombia COP17 Country Insights & Results
The Energy Research Centre
www.erc.uct.ac.za

Development Development and Mi ga on Policy devmit forum energy Equity & Climate SouthSouthNorth
Nego a ons Equity and Climate Nego a ons Implementa on INDC LCDS LEDS Linking Models LTMS LULUCF MAPS Africa www.southsouthnorth.org
MAPS Approach MAPS Approach, Country Insights & Results MAPS Chile Methods & Models mi ga on
The Childrens Investment Fund Founda on
NAMAs Papers Peru PlanCC Poverty Presenta ons SATIM Scenario Building Team South Africa Tools Training www.ci.org
UNFCCC Videos workshop Workshops
PlanCC Peru
www.planccperu.org

MAPS Chile
www.mapschile.cl

http://mapsprogramme.org/outputs/thoughts-on-the-necessary-change-to-a-low-to-zero-carbon-economy-eventually/ 2/2