Climate governance
The IPCC emphasizes the urgency of adapting to climate change, echoed by the call to 'act urgently' in UN Sustainable Development Goal 13. States' efforts consist primarily of climate plans. However, climate risk is amplified by governance risk. The more incremental the implementation of climate plans and policies, and their capacity for change, the more evident their failures and short-sightedness become, and the more the 'climate super-wicked problem' turns into a 'tragedy,' as time is dramatically running out. Climate governance faces two major challenges related to political timescales: how to integrate long-term climate impact into current public policies? How to accelerate the implementation of climate plans? The literature identifies two paths to end this 'tragedy': institutional innovation and the strengthening of authority, even noting that authoritarian environmentalism is more effective than democracy.
The central hypothesis of the APIICC project
Institutional innovation (Patterson & Huitema, 2019) in procedural instruments of climate governance is one of the main levers for improving the effectiveness of climate policies. Procedural instruments are defined as instruments designed to indirectly influence outcomes through the organization of public policy processes (Howlett, 2008). Unlike substantive instruments—which act directly on the distribution of goods, services, or incentives—procedural instruments organize the interactions between the state and society to support government objectives and structure decision-making and implementation processes. According to Bali et al. (2021), procedural instruments are technical mechanisms designed to influence how public policies are formulated and applied. They are thus governance instruments whose innovation can contribute to transforming governance itself.
The APIICC project aims to overcome scientific obstacles
➜ The scientific literature on institutional innovation in climate governance remains limited.
➜ It tends either to propose broad principles, often disconnected from a solid empirical foundation, or to neglect certain specific objects.
➜ In particular, the procedural instruments of climate policy governance remain little studied and are rarely the subject of in-depth monographs.
➜ Moreover, the themes of institutional innovation, procedural instruments and political temporalities appear largely compartmentalized and insufficiently articulated with each other.
What role does APIICC play in addressing climate challenges?
Faced with climate change, public policy governance is confronted with two major challenges linked to the timescales of public action. These challenges shape the capacity to implement effective transformational adaptation.
1. Accelerate implementation
How can we accelerate the implementation of solutions to address climate change through public policies, as a central lever for action?
2. Integrate the long term
How can we integrate the long-term impacts of climate change into current agricultural policies, which are often built on short-term horizons?
The project has three objectives that make it unique in the face of scientific challenges and in terms of social responsibility
I.
To produce new empirical knowledge on innovative procedural instruments of climate governance and ongoing experiences to improve their governance, in particular by analyzing their capacity to accelerate policy implementation, integrate long-term perspectives and strengthen their legitimacy.
II.
Develop a model for evaluating institutional innovation.
III.
Formulate, with stakeholders, recommendations for innovative governance of the transformational adaptation of agriculture, within a framework of social responsibility of science.
The variables used to achieve these objectives
i) the objectives of innovation (horizontal policy integration, quality of governance, adaptive governance, enabling accelerated implementation and the integration of the long term of climate change…)
ii) the types and structure of procedural governance instruments
iii) their positioning on the authority/innovation continuum
iv) the origin of the instruments (political, administrative, international, etc.)
v) the origin of the innovators (expertise, sectors, administration, etc.)
vi) their capacity for innovation (analytical skills, ability to navigate complexity, collaborative learning, etc.)
vii) the political regimes and styles of public policy.[1]
[1] For a detailed analysis of each of these variables, see the scientific grid composed of 251 items, developed within the framework of WP1 of the project and populated from research conducted in each of the countries on the different instruments studied. See the APIICC research project (2023), a research proposal submitted to the 2023 generic call for projects of the French National Research Agency (ANR) by Gilles Massardier – CIRAD, ART-DEV – and selected for funding under grant number ANR-23-CE53-0008 (ANR Project-23-CE53-0008).
Methodological approach
The project is based on a systematic process common to all case studies. In each country, four public policy instruments are selected: two at the national level and two at the local level, including two financial and two non-financial instruments. In some cases, the same instrument may be analyzed at both levels. The approach comprises three main stages: an exploratory phase for selecting instruments and compiling a corpus of documents, primarily from grey literature and scholarly publications; a fieldwork phase based on semi-structured interviews and, where possible, direct observation; and a processing, analysis, and report writing phase. The APIICC project's analytical framework structures the entire process: it guides data collection, interviews, coding, analysis, and comparison, particularly with regard to innovation objectives, instrument types, the authority/innovation continuum, the origin of instruments and innovators, innovation capacities, and public policy regimes and styles. The interviews are transcribed and, if necessary, translated into English. The processing, storage, and use of data comply with the GDPR and the APIICC project's Data Management Plan.[2] Finally, the results are integrated into a detailed report for each instrument, following a common structure defined by the project.
[2] See the APIICC project Data Management Plan, included in the research proposal submitted to the 2023 generic call for proposals of the French National Research Agency (ANR), coordinated by Gilles Massardier (CIRAD, ART-Dev), project funded under reference ANR-23-CE53-0008
Project timeline
The governance instruments analyzed by the APIICC project
-
CNAAS / LBA – Credit and Insurance Association
Learn more : CNAAS / LBA – Credit and Insurance Association -
Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMs) – Test and Trial / MLUF
Find out more : Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMs) – Test and Trial / MLUF -
GECSA – Georgian Climate Service for Agriculture: Climate Information Platform (MRV)
Learn more : GECSA – Georgian Climate Service for Agriculture: Climate Information Platform (MRV) -
Territorial cooperation agreement (Rennes–Haute-Bretagne)
Learn more : Territorial cooperation agreement (Rennes–Haute-Bretagne)
The Project Researchers Directory
Bibliographic space
Grey literature
Literature reviews
