You are on page 1of 18

Mapping actors involved in climate change

policy networks in the UK

John Turnpenny, Alex Haxeltine, Irene Lorenzoni,


Tim O'Riordan and Mavis Jones

January 2005

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 66


Mapping actors involved in climate
change policy networks in the UK

John Turnpenny1*, Alex Haxeltine1, Irene Lorenzoni2, Tim


O’Riordan2, Mavis Jones2

(1): Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
* contact email: j.turnpenny@uea.ac.uk

(2): Centre for Environmental Risk, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 66

[this paper was submitted to the journal “Climate Policy”, Autumn 2004]

1
Summary
In order for climate change research to be policy-relevant, knowledge of the policy process is vital both in
informing the research questions and determining where within the process the results will have most
influence. In trying to better understand this requirement, this paper uses a policy network approach to map
the climate change policy process at national and regional scales in the UK based on a series of in-depth
interviews with UK climate policy shapers. We examine the interactions between policy process and
production/interpretation of scientific knowledge and explore the implications for future research-policy
relationships. We find that climate change considerations are ‘mainstreamed’ in the UK, resulting in a
complex political process of overlapping influences and conflicting objectives from many public, private,
NGO and other sectors. At the national scale, the network forms a discourse coalition, while at the regional
scale, we have a more goal-focussed action network. This distinction is partly a consequence of the
centralisation of climate change policy in the UK and the uneasy relationship to devolution and
implementation. Finally we outline some consequences for research of this network of policy processes.
These include more attention to the machinery of adaptation and mitigation, close working with regional
development agents, notably in energy, water, biodiversity and housing, and a critical look at sustainability
and spatial planning.

1 Introduction

1.1 Aims

The relationships among scientific research, social-scientific research and the policy-making process are
complicated. Jasanoff (1990, pp. 4-6) concludes that science is less influential on the policy process than is
commonly believed. In many critical arenas of complex policy making, such as climate change mitigation
and adaptation, the combination of scientific uncertainty, variable predictability of future states, and disputes
over the likely consequences of policy options render science as much as a topic for investigation as a source
of policy guidance. “Authoritative” evidence in science is as much to do with the networks of influence and
power as it is to do with the production of knowledge (Jasanoff, 1987, 1990, 1996). >From a practical
perspective it is important, in order to make most effective use of research results, for every research project
to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how those results might be used and how decisions are taken.
Hence in this paper, we examine just what are the policy networks connected to climate change at the
national and regional level in the UK. Such networks both shape how science is designed to enter and
influence it, and how scientific knowledge is transferred through it. Our contention here is that policy
networks hugely influence how climate change assessments are both interpreted and transformed. It is this
policy-assessment interactive process that will increasingly influence the role of science in interpreted
climate future studies. The work described in this paper is part of a research programme to explore how
applied research on climate change can better guide and be guided by the policy process.

The aims of this paper are to:


• map out the climate change policy process in the UK context and explore its interactions with production
and interpretation of scientific knowledge;
• assess the implications in identifying how applied research on climate change can best operate within the
policy process;
• explore the implications of the results for future research-policy relationships;

We begin by outlining the background to the Tyndall research, and the need for actor classification and
mapping, and provide a theoretical background to the development of these tools. The results section
examines the interactions between different organisations identified as being involved with the climate
change issue and climate change policy in the UK context. In the remainder of the paper we explore the
direct implications of these results for policy; and the places in the resulting network where research can best
interface with the policy process, both generally and in the context of the Tyndall programme.

1.2 Background

Climate change is a multi-faceted problem, requiring insights from climate science, economics, social
sciences, the humanities and engineering. At the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – a UK-based

2
interdisciplinary research network – a major research objective is to create an integrated assessment (IA)
system, which combines knowledge and research results from these diverse academic disciplines (e.g.
Rotmans & Dowlatabadi, 1998). Climate change policy making involves many actors. These include
emitters of greenhouse gases, those who make climate change policy and those who will be affected directly
and indirectly by climate change. This covers organisations from the largest multinational corporations, the
international research community, national, regional and local government, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), businesses and the huge range of local communities and citizens. Thus, perceptions of, and
responses to, climate change are closely related to individual / societal outlooks, consumption patterns, and
the influence of regulations, pricing, media coverage and awareness-raising campaigns.

At the Tyndall Centre, we are developing an integrated assessment model (IAM) embedded within a process
of interactions with key external decision makers, or potential users of the research) (Warren et al, 2003).
This approach links models of the climate system with models of climate change impacts and economics.
The specific process of interaction with users is intended to be a two-way ‘learning’ process in which user
knowledge and expectations inform and contribute to development and execution of the research (Turnpenny
et al., 2003). This ensures that timely, relevant research results can be effectively communicated to those
who will use them. Similarly, users can then respond to the research outputs, continuing a process of
dialogue which will eventually result in insights into climate change which could not have been achieved
through the research alone, or even through a one-off input of user needs. We refer to this as an Interactive
Integrated Assessment Process (IIAP).

At issue here is a changing approach to undertaking policy relevant science. Two distinguishing features
stand out. One is the direct engagement with information users and policy managers so that knowledge is the
result of dialogue and mutual assessment. The other is the responsiveness of the scientific process to the
needs of policy managers for particular clarity or understanding lying behind scientific assessments or
predictions. The philosophical challenges of designing research to be ‘policy-relevant’ have been reviewed
elsewhere (e.g. Hunt & Shackley, 1999; Turnpenny, 2003). The IIAP approach indicates that “knowledge”
of what causes climate change, or how a given policy measure may effect future economies, societies and
emissions of greenhouse gases, is a joint product of how the stakeholder judges the “worth” of the
assessment models, or scenarios, and how the researcher judges what form of presentation of predictive
outcomes will be most clear or helpful to the stakeholder.

1.3 Use and development of actor mapping tools

The interaction described above requires a detailed understanding of the users of the results, including how
they relate to each other, what sort of research on climate change they require and how they respond to
research. An important part of this is an understanding of the actors in the policy process - those
organisations or individuals which have varying influence in the process. Turnpenny et al. (2003) carried out
a scoping study of user needs for information from climate change research in a UK context to inform the
direction of the IIAP. The organisations interviewed were all both actors and users, consisting of 40 public,
private and NGO organisations, including national and local government, government agencies, and
businesses. Here we elaborate on Turnpenny et al.’s interview data, which yielded information about the
relationships between the interviewees, since this is useful in developing an actor analysis. In the following
sections we explore the relationship among the actors that shape the climate change policy process in the
UK, using policy network theory. We map those at UK level and at the regional level in the East of England.
We then discuss how the method can aid us in understanding how actors interact and where the most likely
leverage points in the system are. The discussion introduced above leads us to observe that knowing who is
dealing with whom, and how information is processed is an invaluable element of climate change science.

The critical point here is that the UK has no clear machinery of implementation for climate change policy at
the sub national level. Local government has no specific powers and obligations for the reduction of
greenhouse gases except for a general duty. Regional government, while professing sustainability, actively
work more as inward investment and development agencies. To swing this economic approach more to a
carbon reduction approach requires a change of outlook and management structure. We turn to these matters
at the end of the paper (ESRC).

2 Interactions between actors: a climate change policy network for the UK

3
2.1 Networks of actors

The behaviour and dynamics of a group of actors can be expressed in many ways, both graphically and
textually. For example, in the SIRCH (Social and Institutional responses to Climatic Change and Climatic
Hazards) project, Downing et al. (2003) map a case study of stakeholders in water resources management to
assess adaptive capacity to climate change in southern England on three axes. These are their scale of
operation, their decision-making environment and their level of decision-making (influence on policy
setting). The resulting ‘planes’ and the position of these stakeholders on these planes gives an indication of
the similarity and differences among stakeholders on the basis of the criteria assessed.

Another way to help understand participation of different actors within a policy area is the ‘policy network’
approach. This is a model of interest group connections which identifies actors participating in a particular
policy issue or arena, traces their interactions and resource sharing, and assesses their respective influence
(Rhodes and Marsh, 1992). The policy network approach is limited in its ability to explain policy change or
learning; but it is a useful tool to use in conjunction with theories lacking adequate conceptualisations of
interaction. It is not uniformly defined in the literature, but this lends it the strength of flexibility. Benson
(1982, p. 148) defines a policy network as:

“a cluster...of organisations connected....by resource dependencies and distinguished from other clusters by
breaks in the structure of resource dependencies”.

Within the network, there are many different dimensions of interaction. Rhodes and Marsh (1992) show that
networks have four dimensions – interests (who is primarily served), membership (open or closed),
interdependence (with other networks, and responsibility to produce outputs) and resources (money,
knowledge, authoritative influence). There are several models of the policy learning and dynamic process
within the network, i.e. how the network actually carries out the policy process. One of the best-known is
the discourse coalition, in which there is a shared understanding of a problem, but not necessarily the same
world view (Bulkeley, 2000). For example, both the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Friends of the Earth may agree on the need to reduce greenhouse gases, but
not share the same vision for the world. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) judge such coalitions as groups of
interests sharing a common perspective on a policy issue or regulatory framework, but with different
institutional backgrounds and affiliations. Discourse coalitions can become highly effective in processes of
policy change precisely because they organise around a common agenda for very different points of policy
entry and political expertise. In climate sciences, such coalitions can effectively form precisely because they
know and utilise the policy networks described there.

The advocacy coalition is a special type of discourse coalition, where worldviews are also shared. The
concept of action networks (Carley and Christie, 2000) is similar, but focuses on particular goals (such as
solving a water shortage problem) rather than a policy issue generally. Action networks consist of flexible
teams made up of different types of organisations who come together to solve particular problems and then
disperse; while advocacy coalitions may be more or less stable, depending on the tranquillity or turbulence of
the policy process, action networks are generally more opportunistic and ephemeral. However, they can
influence and shift the policy networks with use of pressure and specialised knowledge. For instance new
information on the possibility of extreme climate outcomes (e.g. extreme flood events) may be promoted by
an action network right into a sensitive aspect of the policy process (e.g. flood management policy).

The literature on policy networks is complex, and there is no general agreement even on definition of terms
(see John, 1998 for a critique). However, our aim in the IIAP is a practical one: to use a network approach to
illuminate the leverage points and identify the presence of any self-reinforcing ‘closed loops’ which act
against change, rather than develop the theory. Bulkeley (2000) examines how a policy-network approach
can aid domestic responses to climate change in Australia; however, there has been relatively little work on
policy networks for climate change in the UK. Krueck & Borchers (1999) and Shackley (2001) effectively
identify a “closed-elitist” network between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the
UK government. The former, one of the world’s foremost climate modelling centres, is funded by the latter
and was set up as a source of “science-for-policy” within government. There is considerable political
pressure for the UK to be a world leader in climate model development, and model developments are timed

4
to coincide with the deadlines for reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Krueck &
Borchers, 1999). However, this discussion relates only to the climate modelling aspects of the climate
change issue. One of the aims of this research is to see whether the policy network model applies to the
wider issues on other aspects of climate change.

2.2 A UK policy network for climate change

Earlier interview work yielded a detailed picture of the interrelationships among actors participating in the
UK climate change policy process, and a full list of these can be found in the scoping study (Turnpenny et
al., 2003). Here, for the sake of simplicity of representation, we have summarised many of these
organisations into generic categories, and have highlighted the various types of interaction among them (see
Figure 1).

5
Figure 1: A Policy Network for climate change in the UK. [“Government Agencies” includes for example the
Environment Agency. Government Departments: Defra = Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
Defra-GA = Global Atmosphere Division; Defra – SEP = Sustainable Energy Policy Division; DTI = Department of
Trade and Industry; DfT = Department for Transport; DH = Department of Health; MOD = Ministry of Defence; FCO
= Foreign & Commonwealth Office; DfID = Department for International Development; ODPM = Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister; DG Environment = Environment Directorate]

6
The large amount of information yielded from the interviews allowed us to develop the representation
beyond the traditional policy network and attempt to show graphically the types of interaction within the
network, such as funding, power, lobbying and personnel.

Figure 1 portrays three distinct strands of policy networks in an overall pattern of policy linkage. One lies
with the international arena of the UNFCCC, the Bonn Secretariat, the group of 8 More Developed
Economies, and the European Union. The UK diplomatic offensive is to maintain the pressure on the US to
meet Kyoto Protocol obligations by one means or another, even if not formally committed to the Protocol.
To this end the pattern of influence rests with the European Presidency of the G8 in 2005 at the UK
Presidency of the EU in late 2005. This combination will provide a pivot to link integrated assessment into a
policy process of a second commitment period.

The second strand is the links between different parts of the UK government. Principally, the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Global Atmosphere Division) (Defra-GA) is responsible for
mitigation policy, and the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is responsible for impacts and
adaptation. Defra-GA is responsible for the UK Climate Change Programme, which details the UK’s
policies and progress towards meeting its Kyoto obligations and mitigating climate change generally. Defra
is also responsible, with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), in setting the UK’s energy policy. An
example of this cross-departmental collaboration appears in the 2003 Energy White Paper, which sets out the
UK vision for energy policy (DTI, 2003). Within government, all departments have prepared a strategy on
how climate change will affect their activities, and how they can adapt. This shows that the importance of,
and concern about, climate change has permeated throughout government, at least on the surface. However,
the Prime Minister and Treasury hold key influences in the British Government, more than in many Western
countries, and climate change action depends on its position on these actors’ priorities. Here again is a
fascinating mix of price, regulation and policy machinery around housing, settlement design and energy
strategy.

The third strand lies with the link between central government and the devolved administrations in Scotland,
Wales and the English Regions. This is a policy network in the making. Already Scotland has committed
itself to a 20 percent CO2 reduction by 2010, and the English regions are being given a more strategic role in
regional renewable energy and settlement planning under the White Paper (DTI, 2003).

Much of the information on climate change itself is derived from government funding. For example, UKCIP
is funded by Defra and uses climate change modelling information provided by the Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research – a large climate modelling group within the UK Met Office - to produce
groundbreaking research (e.g. the UKCIP02 climate change scenarios – Hulme et al., 2002). This
information is widely used by other government departments, local/regional authorities and businesses.
There are also many research organisations now involved in responding to climate change, and there are
multiple interactions between these and all the organisations in Figure 1 (not shown for diagram clarity).
These include academic, quasi-governmental, think-tank and industry R&D organisations, in addition to the
research carried out in-house by many (especially NGO) organisations. The nature of this research is broad,
concerning many fields from ecology to law, and is specific in nature for each of the policymaking
organisations. Research organisations are funded by all types of organisations shown, and there is a complex
web of research contracts and alliances.

Business, often represented by umbrella groups such as the Association of British Insurers and the
Confederation of British Industry, and NGO groups, such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF,
exert significant influence on government at all levels. For example, there is an Advisory Committee in
Business and the Environment which looks at all aspects of environmental issues, including climate change.
This is currently under review as part of the DTI’s reassessment of the climate change programme policy
network. In addition the CBI contains a committee on climate change which monitors the UK international
obligations and diplomacy for possible effects on the comprehensiveness of UK business generally.
Business organisations are also heavily influenced by the national and EU government, as their operations
must conform with legal requirements. There is hence a ‘loop’ of influence, which in practice does not work
for the benefit of action on climate change. Government is wary of harming business, and the perceived
negative consequences which too stringent action on the environment may bring, and businesses claim they
are simply waiting for government legislation to proceed with action.

7
Attention towards climate change in the UK policy-making community has broadened considerably over the
last five years, moving away from mainly questions about detection to focus on questions about the direction
of action. The focus on responses to climate change, perceived to be more societally relevant and with wide
repercussions for the economy of the country, contributed to raise the profile of climate change and to
‘mainstreaming’ of the issue. Concurrently, the debate on ‘what should be done (if anything)’ has widened
the interest in the issue and brought into the policy process many organisations (businesses, consumer
associations, environmental groups, etc.) not part or directly in touch with the lead government department
(Defra) and the Hadley Centre. These have broadened the ‘ownership’ of the science, has shifted the
network towards a more open fluid model, and has raised the profile of social construction of the knowledge.
This resonates with the contemporary literature on nested patterns of interlinked governance (Rhodes 1997;
Stoker 1998). The notion of governance has become amorphous in recent years. It applies to a style of
managing human affairs in terms of many centres of decision making, many partnerships for actual delivery
and many forms of accountability and democracy operating at different scales. It also recognises the mix of
public, private and civil sections in styles of governance, with many different measures of performance and
accountability.

2.3. A regional climate change policy network – the case of the East of England Region

We have seen that in the UK, regional authorities have an increasingly important strategic role in dealing
with the impacts of climate change, and, eventually (through for example, spatial planning), climate change
mitigation. Figure 2 shows the results of a similar policy network exercise for an English Region – the East
of England has been taken as an example. Since there are fewer groups involved in climate change policy at
the regional level, the organisations have been labelled more specifically than for the national network.

8
Figure 2: A policy network for climate change in the East of England Region [EE = East of England; RSPB = Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds; NHS = National Health Service; CRed = Carbon Reduction project; Hunts=
Huntingdonshire]

9
Within the Region, the East of England Sustainable Development Round Table is the key forum for
leadership on climate change. It produces the Sustainable Development Framework, intended as the
overarching document from which all other regional strategies are informed. As membership of the Round
Table draws from many bodies responsible for production of the other strategies, the link between the
Sustainable Development Framework and other strategies is more easily achieved. The main regional outputs
are Strategies which outline spatial and sectoral development plans over the next 10 – 20 years. Many of the
strategies, which are influential across the region (“influence” arrows not shown for diagram clarity) include
the need to address climate change.

This point raises some interesting questions. Economic, social and environment strategies on a regional level
are by no means shaped by carbon reducing, or climate change adapting, policies and objectives. The
matching of climate change related goals with the huge array of other economic, social and environmental
concerns is simply not yet on the regional agenda. Our “map” here is but part of a bigger picture. We are
now working to create this picture.

Much of the information available regionally on climate change relates to impacts and adaptation options,
mainly produced through UKCIP and national government. In spite of aims to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the Region, there are few official top-down quantitative targets or enabling mechanisms; these
are mostly perceived to be the responsibility of national government. There is also a regional target stating
that 14% of electricity should come from renewables by 2010 (based on Hams et al., 1999).

3 Discussion

3.1 The nature of the policy network

The policy network approach has allowed us to map interactions among actors in the climate change arena
for the UK and for a particular area, the East of England. The arrangement of governance and influence on
climate change, at both national and regional levels in the UK, is illuminated by this approach, enhanced
with a richer description of the types of interactions. The analysis has shown that policymaking on climate
change has moved from a simple ‘policy question-research response’ to a complex, political process of
overlapping influences and conflicting objectives. The need for an integrated approach to climate change
research is pressing, since all almost all players in the policy process have to consider interacting issues of
economics, social change, environment and planning outside their own particular interest. Responses to
climate change, such as compliance with emissions reduction policies, or adaptation to possible changes in
rainfall, have become ‘mainstreamed’ into every day decisions, even for previously less engaged actors.

At the national level, the discourse coalition model is a most appropriate description. The organisations
involved agree that climate change is an issue which should be addressed (there are very few if any
significant anti-climate change players), but the players differ in their worldviews, encompassing business,
NGO, government and citizen groups. However, there are many examples of action network activity within
this broader framing. One of these is the review of the UK Climate Change Programme by the Sustainable
Development Commission (SDC, 2003). This made use of a research team (Edinburgh Centre for Carbon
Management) and a policy unit (Policy Studies Unit) plus networked members of the SDC. Their analysis
suggested that official carbon emission baseline data was too optimistic (i.e. the likely emissions would be 6
percent higher by 2010). Furthermore the costs of CO2 reduction varied widely with the programme, and
the programme itself did not contribute to the broad principles of sustainable development. In essence the
report showed many entry points for reassessment of the climate change policy programme. These applied
to framing the analysis, reanalysing the assumptions and clarifying the broad political purposes and
principles of attaining CO2 reduction. Only via systematic examination of the climate policy network could
this evidence be most effectively presented.

It appears that at the regional level there is more of an action network approach to addressing climate change
than at the national level. Within the East, the presence of the Round Table explicitly brings organisations
together to implement national and regional policy - and influence regional policy. The Round Table is goal-
focused; for example it influences planning decisions and energy policy, such as the building of new wind
farms. This level of practicality is absent at the national level, where the debate is much more about
influence over larger areas of policy. This is partly a consequence of regionalisation, where national policies

10
are usually implemented regionally and locally. The national scale is for big-picture influence, and the
regional scale for the practical solutions, and these differences are reflected in the various policy networks,
and the nature and method of working of the organisations involved.

What does this analysis mean for future mitigation/adaptation efforts? The widespread concern with the
issue, for various reasons, and multiple avenues of influence at first seem a great improvement in terms of
addressing the issue following the general apathy and ignorance of climate change in the 1990s. However,
the ‘spaghetti-like’ structures, or ‘policy mess’ (Rhodes, 1994) can result in duplication of effort, repetition,
political manoeuvring, and ultimately wasted effort and lack of action. Ultimately, climate change is rather
peripheral to mainstream policies such as pursuance of economic growth or housing development, mainly
because of its overwhelmingly long-term nature and lack of tangible current pressures for action. In the UK,
the Treasury is by far the most influential government department, but has very little engagement with the
issue, leaving this to the less influential Defra. This reflects the reality of electoral cycle politics, which
means that long term problems are deferred in favour of short term reactive solutions. Ultimately, the policy
network, although impressively wide-ranging, will make very little difference to climate change unless major
structural and institutional issues are addressed.

This is another vital point to address. The policy of central government is to devolve strategic economic,
planning and environmental policies to the regions. This is a variable process with many differences of
commitment of money and staff, differing greatly across the regions. The issue for “climate change
governance” is that this process does not readily take into account all of the nuances linked to carbon
embedded materials use and consumption that form a large part of household carbon audits, yet are not
touched to any significant degree by regional policy.

3.2 Leverage points and windows of opportunity

Our analysis has illustrated that each actor interacts with others in a unique way. This begs an important
question for us as researchers: how can we determine the best places for research to be applied? Indeed, how
can we identify what we mean by ‘best’, whether it be, for example, the place where results are used most
frequently, in most detail, or where they have the most far-reaching power to influence sustainable responses
to climate change? To answer these questions, we need to understand dynamics of the system, identifying
leverage points, and using transition management theory to identify ‘windows of opportunity’ and ‘lock-in’
(Martens and Rotmans, 2002). Some of these windows and leverage points exist through legislation,
physical or historical precedent, power, information sources and moral argument, or some combination of
these. Others need to be created where the appropriate opportunity arises. Identifying these issues, and
developing formal methods for so doing, is an important area of investigation for future research.

3.3 Implications for the Tyndall IIAP and climate change research generally

We have described the importance of research to the policy process. The complicated network and different
styles of governance emphasise the need for interactive and participatory science, and learning networks and
partnerships. For our purposes, climate change policy is quintessentially a matter for this new form of
governance. It transcends the global to the local, it is learning and adaptive, it requires co-operation across a
range of actors and styles of financing, and it is both guiding and being guided by events and different mixes
of institutions. This is why we feel climate change policy via policy networks is ripe for examination under
the governance label. The use of participatory methods, and a flexible approach to the nature and range of
tools used, as well as need for two-way learning between researchers and lay people, are a necessity in this
complex policy pattern. In Turnpenny et al. (2003) we identified the need for ‘Strategic Guidance’ – the use
of a combination of tools and techniques which were assembled uniquely for each research question and
user.

Within this network, it is the responsibility of research to be pertinent and well-directed. The success of
research depends on a clear understanding of a) the relative influences and links between users of climate
change information and policy actors, and b) the precise form of interaction and type of research which is
most useful to these organisations.

11
The results can help us to apply the IIAP to case studies which have optimal interface with the policy
process. The complexity of the policy system is the first major barrier. Which users should be involved in a
particular piece of research? Obviously, we need to ensure that we both work with key actors and those who
will use the research. Regarding numbers, a balance must be struck between ‘all of them’ and ‘none of
them’. Here we describe in more detail the choice of users in our case studies, which were summarised in
Turnpenny et al. (2003).

At the global-national spatial scale, the policy networks approach and interviews illustrate that the most
obvious leverage point for research on climate change is the UK government, specifically the Defra Global
Atmosphere Division. This is the department responsible for both mitigation and adaptation policy in the
UK, and the focus of efforts by other organisations to influence climate policy. In spite of the significant
power of the Treasury, for example, Defra is a more pertinent choice since it is a much greater user of a
richer variety of information surrounding climate change. Our case study is illuminating potential costs of
different greenhouse gas stabilisation scenarios to support post-Kyoto negotiations.

At the local-regional spatial scale, the key players are much less obvious (see Figure 2); there is much more
overlap and sharing of responsibility. From the East of England case study, it appears that it is more
appropriate for climate change researchers to interact with a group of users than an individual organisation.
In the East of England, the Sustainable Development Round Table is a useful group, since it draws
membership from public, private and NGO sectors, including those who are responsible for the important
Regional Strategy documents. Notably, our case study shows that whilst the East of England region is
deploying its resources in considering adaptation to climate change, less consideration has been devolved to
aspects of mitigation. Our involvement in this region through the IIAP project aims to help address this
equally important aspect of climate change by illustrating how the region may look under different scenarios
of greenhouse gas emission reductions concurrently to adaptations to climate change.

Currently we have developed a series of emissions based carbon economy futures for the region. These
adopt particular policy perspectives ranging from markets dominant, regulations-centred, markets-regulation
mixing, and deep sustainability policy envelopes. We also offer a continuation of present trends and the
scope for senior regional policy analysts to look into more dramatic futures based on economic collapse and
uncertain fossil fuel supplies.

This actively has strengthened our interest in opening the debate as to how regional structures might best be
designed to manage for climate change yet also pursue strategies for deeper sustainability. This mixing of
critical policy arena, so superficially connected yet so very different in policy structure and delivery, will
form the primary focus of our next phase of research.

References

Benson, J.K. (1982) ‘A framework for policy analysis’ in Rogers, D. et al. (eds.) Interorganisational
Coordination. Iowa State University Press

Bulkeley, H. (2000) ‘Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network’ Environment
and Planning C – Government and Policy: 18 (6): 727-748

Carley, M., Christie, I. (2000) Managing sustainable development. 2nd ed. Earthscan

Downing, T.E., Bakker, K., Lonsdale, K., Summerton, N., Swyngedouw, E., Giansante, C. (2003) ‘Expert
stakeholder participation in the Thames region’ in Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C., Gardner, M.T. (eds.)
Public Participation in Sustainability Science – a handbook. Cambridge University Press

DTI (2003) ‘Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy’ London, Department of Trade and
Industry

Hams, T., Evans, N., Taylor, D. (1999) ‘Making renewable energy a reality – setting a challenging target for
the Eastern Region’ Renewable Energy and Land Use Planning Report to the East of England Sustainable
Development Round Table

12
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M.,
Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R., Hill, S. (2002) ‘Climate Change Scenarios for the United
Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report’ Norwich, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Hunt, J., Shackley, S. (1999) ‘Reconceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic
knowledge’ Minerva: 37: 141-164

Jasanoff, S. (1987) ‘Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science’ Social Studies of Science: 17: 195-230.

Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy makers. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press

Jasanoff, S. (1996) ‘Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science’ Social
Studies of Science: 26: 393-418

John, P. (1998) Analysing Public Policy. New York, Continuum

Krueck, C.P., Borchers, J. (1999) ‘Science in politics – a comparison of climate modelling centres’
Minerva: 37: 105-123

Martens, P., Rotmans, J. (2002) Transitions in a Globalising World. Swets & Zeitlinger.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1994) ‘Interorganisational networks and control: a critical conclusion’ in Kaufman, F.X.
(ed.) The Public Sector: Challenge for Co-ordination and Learning. Berlin & New York, De Groyter

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance. Milton Keynes, Open University

Rhodes, R.A.W., Marsh, D. (1992) ‘Policy networks in British politics: a critique of existing approaches’ in
Marsh, D., Rhodes, R.A.W (eds) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford, Oxford University Press

Rotmans, J., Dowlatabadi, H. (1998) ‘Integrated Assessment Modeling’ in Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (eds)
Human Choice and Climate Change, Volume 3: Tools for Policy Analysis. Batelle Press

Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach.
Boulder, CO, Westview Press

Shackley, S. (2001) ‘Epistemic lifestyles in climate change modeling’ in Miller, C.A., Edwards, P.N.
Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

Stoker, J. (1998) ‘Governance as theory’ International Social Science Journal: 155: 17-28

SDC (2003) ‘UK Climate Change Programme: A Policy Audit’ London, Sustainable Development
Commission

Turnpenny, J.R. (2003) ‘Post-Normal Science and the Tyndall Centre: some critical issues’ Tyndall
Briefing Note No. 9, December 2003.

Turnpenny, J.R.; Haxeltine, A.; O’Riordan, T. (2003) ‘A scoping study of user needs for integrated
assessment of climate change in the UK context: Part 1 of the development of an interactive integrated
assessment process’ Integrated Assessment 4(4): 283-300

Warren, R., Haxeltine, A., Schellnhuber, J., Naylor, L. (2003) ‘Developments in Integrated Assessment: The
Co-productive Approach’ in Proceedings of OECD Workshop on the Benefits of Climate Policy, 2003

13
The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the
long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses
that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these
objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique
collaborative research effort.
Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all
aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to
Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to
society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change
mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring
about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and
knowledge.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions:
University of East Anglia
UMIST
Southampton Oceanography Centre
University of Southampton
University of Cambridge
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex)
Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds)
Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University)
Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations:
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:
External Communications Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901
Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk
Tyndall Working Papers are available online at
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml

Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-by- Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change
Country Analysis of Past and Future Warming in an energy-environment-economy (E3)
Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. model for an IA system: A model of
Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment
15.
Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2.
Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and
Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001).
Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate
Socio-economic futures in climate change
change: Setting the Agenda for Development
impact assessment: using scenarios as
Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working
'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 16.
Paper 3.
Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy
Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are
Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17.
the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large
technical systems: implications for hydrogen,
Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18.
and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the
UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of
hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall
Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001).
Centre Working Paper 19.
The identification and evaluation of suitable
scenario development methods for the Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational
estimation of future probabilities of extreme use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK
weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 20.
Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP
Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre
Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate
Working Paper 21.
Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8.
Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C.
Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate
(2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat
Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre
and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 9.
Working Paper 22.
Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001).
Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and
Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial
adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre
Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 23.
Working Paper 10.
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002).
Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated
Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP
Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation
into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall
and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11.
Centre Working Paper 24
Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from
Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac,
The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking
G. (2003). An investigation of Network
the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working
Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall
Paper 12.
Centre Working Paper 25
Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002).
Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level
Technological Change, Industry Structure and
risk measures of climate-related natural
the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
disasters and implications for adaptation to
13.
climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26
Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of
Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building
Integrated Assessment: An Institutional
resilience to climate change through adaptive
Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working
management of natural resources, Tyndall
Paper 14.
Centre Working Paper 27
Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H., Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S.
Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation
and experiencing dangerous climate change, into climate and development policy: three
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
40
Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A Multi-
Criteria Assessment Framework for Carbon-
Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for
Mitigation Projects: Putting “development” in
2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41
the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 29
Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and
Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall
society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Centre Working Paper 42

Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T. Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003),


(2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for Innovation and Threshold Effects in
managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilot- Technology Responses to Climate Change,
phase interactive integrated assessment Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43
process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 31 Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004)
Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and
Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44
Electricity System: Investigation of the impact
of network faults on the stability of large Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological
offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working carbon sequestration: critical legal issues,
Paper 32 Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45

Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight, Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A.,
M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK
Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre
Centre Working Paper 33 Working Paper 46

Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004)
need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation
34 to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 47
Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to
the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic
lessons learned from responding to tropical structure under technological development,
cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48
1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35
Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our
Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003). electricity networks to promote
Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49
Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working
Paper 36 Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J.
(2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future?
Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50
Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost
of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37 Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004)
Hysteresis and energy demand: the
Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and Announcement Effects and the effects of the
adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall UK climate change levy, Tyndall Centre Working
Centre Working Paper 38 Paper 51

Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2
Defining response capacity to enhance climate –Based Taxes: A Survey, Tyndall Centre Working
change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39 Paper 52
Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L.
Announcement Effect and environmental (2004) The political economy of cross-
taxation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 scale networks in resource co-
management, Tyndall Centre Working Paper
Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., &
65
O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and
local scenarios for climate change mitigation
and adaptation, Part 1: A framing of the East Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I.,
of England, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54 O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping
actors involved in climate change policy
Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M. networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working
and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of Paper 66
high-resolution grids of monthly climate for
Europe and the globe: the observed record
(1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100),
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55

Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social


vulnerability to climate change for Africa,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56

Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S (2004) The


Public Perceptions of Underground Coal
Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 57

Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social


Simulation of The Public Perceptions of
Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58

Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling


Innovation and Threshold Effects
In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 59

Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004)


Scaling adaptation: climate change response
and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 60

Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel:


Long term perspectives and future prospects,
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61

Barker, T. (2004) The transition to


sustainability: a comparison of economics
approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62

Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S.


(2004) Floods, health and climate change: a
strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63

Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel


Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 64