Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK

Building on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) review of how to make its Assessment Reports (ARs) more accessible in the future, the research reported here assesses the extent to which the ARs are a useful tool through which scientific advice informs local decision-making on climate change in the United Kingdom. Results from interviews with local policy representatives and three workshops with UK academics, practitioners and local decision makers are presented. Drawing on these data, we outline three key recommendations made by participants on how the IPCC ARs can be better utilized as a form of scientific advice to inform local decision-making on climate change. First, to provide more succinct summaries of the reports paying close attention to the language, content, clarity, context and length of these summaries; second, to better target and frame the reports from a local perspective to maximize engagement with local stakeholders; and third, to work with local decision makers to better understand how scientific advice on climate change is being incorporated in local decision-making. By adopting these, the IPCC would facilitate local decision-making on climate change and provide a systematic review of how its reports are being used locally. We discuss implications of these recommendations and their relevance to the wider debate within and outside the IPCC as to the most effective way the IPCC can more effectively tailor its products to user needs without endangering the robustness of its scientific findings. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to governments. DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 OPEN 1 Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK 2 University of Surrey, Guildford, UK 3 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16058 |DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 |www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 1 The IPCC and decision-making The IPCC’s Assessment Reports (ARs) are widely regarded as the most important and authoritative publications on a global scale that summarize the state of knowledge about climate science, its real and potential impacts, and the possibilities of mitigation. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was no exception, consisting of three voluminous working group (WG) reports: WGI, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2013a); WGII, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC, 2014a, b); and WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC, 2014c), and a Synthesis Report (SYR) released in November 2014 (IPCC, 2014d). In spite of the vast amount of evidence they assessed around these three WG themes, climate change remains a complex issue to communicate to non-expert audiences particularly where an information deficit model approach is adopted, whereby the science of climate change is communicated to decision-makers with the assumption that this will adequately inform decision-making processes (Rapley et al., 2014). This linear model where science (facts) speaks truth to power (values) is the dominant paradigm among many climate scientists and policymakers (Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998). A key limitation to this, as discussed by Dessai et al., is that decision makers’ and policymakers’ expectations and over-reliance on evidencebased policy cannot be fulfilled, particularly where large uncertainties are involved and where decision-making processes are highly context-dependent, in that “(...) more than one outcome is consistent with expectations” (Dessai et al., 2009: 67). Nonetheless, there are clear benefits of scientific tools such as the IPCC ARs in aiding decision-making, but the “predict and provide” approach to science in support of climate change adaptation, for example, is “seriously flawed” (Dessai et al., 2009: 74). Policy-making is seen as a complex problem solving activity where “decision-makers [are] assumed to search for the best action among several alternatives” (Brunsson, 2007: 14). Consequently uncertainty in decision-making stems from the range of alternatives available and the process of choosing between them (Brunsson, 2007) and hence it is challenging to “understand, influence, control and hold to account” (Cairney, 2015: 3) these complex decision-making processes. This is particularly relevant to scientists who may seek to influence this; however, epistemological limits to the production of climate evidence (for example, predictions and projections) should not necessarily be interpreted as limits to related decisionmaking, particularly when large uncertainties in this evidence are concerned. Decision-making approaches are dependent on context, and particularly a decision-maker’s [in]ability to deal with abundant and complex information (lacking capacity or competence to do so) combined with the randomness of interactions between decision makers, solutions and alternatives. This means that decision-making “may not follow the norms of rationality” (Brunsson, 2007: 14). Similarly, adopting a pure information deficit approach where knowledge sharing and information provision are assumed to lead to action and robust evidencebased decision-making, can bring a set of challenges even when the political will exists. This results in “archetypal problems of decision-makers not getting information that they need and scientists producing information that is not used” (Cash et al., 2002: 1) and can lead to hypocritical decision-making processes less fruitful in delivering action where “decisions may relieve people of the burden of acting, and that decisions may obstruct action” (Brunsson, 2002: 176). Research into the boundaries of the science–policy interface enables a deeper understanding of how to manage the challenges around communication and collaboration that arise from science–policy interactions (Jasanoff, 1990). Cash et al. (2002) suggest that evidence used to inform decision-making requires three key interconnected attributes: credibility (of the information produced through peer review and of those producing and reviewing it), salience (relevance of the information produced to decision makers), and legitimacy (the extent to which the information produced is fair and considered the values and needs of different actors). While much emphasis is placed on credibility in the IPCC process and a growing emphasis on legitimacy, we argue that salience, particularly in the context of local decision-making, is lacking. Indeed the IPCC has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years by scientific and political communities seeking to assess its future role. Despite the considerable amount of intellectual effort invested by hundreds of climate scientists in the ARs and the robust peer review process carried out to assess academic evidence, recent scrutiny of the IPCC’s activities has highlighted some key challenges in maintaining Cash’s credibility, salience and legitimacy attributes. In late 2009, the illegal hacking of emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, UK and the media attention to a small number of errors in the AR4 reports prompted the UN and the IPCC to commission a report by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) of its reviews and processes. The results of the IAC urged the IPCC to adapt to the changing contexts to “continue to serve society well in the future” (IAC, 2010: xii) through a set of recommendations on its governance and management, its review process, communication and transparency in its assessment process; this speaks directly to Cash’s credibility and salience attributes. A similar enquiry in the United Kingdom led by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee in 2014 concluded that “the [IPCC] would benefit from increasing the level of transparency by recruiting a small team of non climate scientists to serve the review process from start to finish”, thus speaking to Cash’s credibility and legitimacy attributes. Ultimately the Committee concluded that “there is no scientific basis for downgrading the UK’s ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, 2014: 3). In February 2015 at a meeting held in Nairobi, the IPCC assessed submissions on how it could review its future work, in particular related to the frequency and scheduling of reports, the structure and operations of the IPCC (notably to increase the number of members from developing countries in the IPCC Bureau from 31 to 34), making reports more user friendly, making the Summary for Policy Makers (SPMs) more useful, and enhancing the role of developing countries (IPCC, 2015). This built on previous feedback provided by the political community on how the IPCC could revise its processes to promote greater transparency and inclusivity in the authors and experts which participate in the WG outputs to ensure a more balanced contribution across gender, geography, experience. The outcomes from this meeting reflect Cash’s arguments on the importance of credibility, salience and legitimacy in the IPCC process. The UK’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was one of many to make submissions to the Nairobi meeting, having already consulted its devolved administrations, relevant departments, UK-based review editors and Coordinating Lead authors (DECC, 2013). It suggested that the IPCC: Deal more effectively with the increasing complexity and volume of material that needed to be synthesized in its ARs, particularly looking at the challenges faced in different geographical regions and the need to meet the needs of different end users; Adopt a more flexible approach to communication and expand its product range, particularly considering options for utilization of social media; ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 2 PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16058 |DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 |www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms Consider the requirements of its end users such as policymakers, decision-makings and end users in a timely manner (for example, consider the more frequent publication of reports and/or special reports); Consider revising its structure particularly in addressing the silo approach adopted by each of the WGs, and encouraging reports to be coordinated and written by multi-disciplinary teams (for example, across WGs). Communicating the IPCC’s findings for effective local decision-making On the specific issue of the communication of the reports, two key recommendations were made at the Nairobi meeting that aimed to make the reports more user friendly and better align with the evolving tools available to disseminate IPCC outputs more effectively: (i) to ensure that up-to-date digital technology is used to share and disseminate information; (ii) that it seek advice from various specialists to make IPCC reports more readable (IPCC, 2015). The focus on communication was significant because questions have been frequently raised about the effectiveness of the IPCC’s work in this area. Black (2015) has argued that the SPMs, which are the principal way scientists communicate the findings of the WGs to policymakers and nonexpert audiences, are ill-suited for these audiences, mainly because of the jargon-filled language used and the failure to distil the main conclusions into a two-page briefing “of the type that world leaders are used to receiving from their aides”. Hickman (2015) has applauded the IPCC’s recent communication strategy, yet encourages it to modernize and adopt a more engaging approach by embracing online platforms to respond faster to newly available evidence base. He argues that although the IPCC has operated Twitter and Facebook accounts for several years, neither provided “much in the way of reactive interaction with its audiences”. As discussed above, we do not advocate the use of an information deficit approach in communicating climate science. However, a case can be made that in many ways this is the approach adopted by which the IPCC produces its Working Group reports, which are then used by decision makers to inform their practices. This therefore warrants investigations into the nature of the information presented in the IPCC’s outputs, the extent to which it is used and perceived as useful. The language adopted by the IPCC, and in particular how uncertainty is communicated by using different ranges for certainty and confidence levels, has been seen as unhelpful (Patt and Schrag, 2003; Budescu et al., 2009, 2014), which could be interpreted as limiting its salience and legitimacy as a tool according to the Cash attributes. Hollin and Pearce (2015) explored how effectively IPCC scientists addressed uncertainty when presenting the findings of the WGI report at the press conference in September 2013. They argued that the scientists fell into what they called the “IPCC’s certainty trap”, and inconsistencies led to confusion within the press conference and subsequent condemnation in the media. In exploring the readibility of the language used in the IPCC’s outputs, Barkemeyer et al. (2015) found that the SPMs stand out for “very low readability scores” (where an equivalent to a PhD level of understanding of climate science is needed), which have remained fairly constant despite the IPCC’s efforts to amend its communications policy. These results were found to contrast with changes over time in coverage of the IPCC in scientific and broadsheet newspapers, with coverage on more recent reports generally being easier to read. Investigations into the use of risk language and framing in the communication of the IPCC reports (Painter, 2014, 2015a) found that although risk is a term well understood by many in the practitioner community, it is not yet well portrayed in the IPCC reports or its media coverage leading to a disconnect between assessments of scientific knowledge and requirements for informing decision-making (Viner and Howarth, 2014). The IPCC’s current communication strategy goes back to 2012 and the IAC review, when it established that the primary target audiences of its communications efforts are governments and policymakers at all levels (IPCC, 2012). It also identified what it called “broader audiences”, such as the UN, IPCC observer organizations, the scientific community, the education sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the business sector and the wider public as secondary targets for their information. While this clearly speaks to Cash’s salience in terms of ensuring the ARs are relevant to decision-makers, few studies have been published offering detailed qualitative research on how these sectors, and particularly policymakers, view and use the AR reports. Clearly, the category of “government and policymakers” includes a wide range of types of policymakers from negotiators within the UN process, politicians, civil servants, local decision makers and planners, to representatives of bilateral and multilateral agencies. Politicians have been consulted frequently, but other sectors have often been neglected; this is particularly true of end users at the local level. This is an important omission because challenges arising for adopting and implementing international and national plans of action to tackle climate change have led to an increase in locally based initiatives often linked with and demonstrating co-benefits to environmental, economic and social policies (Bedsworth and Hanak, 2013). Responses to climate change in terms of both mitigation and adaptation occur at the local level with a growing range of climate mitigation and adaptation measures taken at the local authority level (IBRD/World Bank, 2010), playing an instrumental role in achieving national and EU 2030 energy and climate targets. In addition, local decision-makers have a deep understanding of the impacts of climate change locally, how local stakeholders, communities and structures respond and their role in driving solutions for effective low-carbon transformations (Vogel and Henstra, 2015). Yet these audiences are not being fully acknowledged in the definition of its end users by the IPCC, which does not capture their needs and values in informing their decision-making processes. Considering the importance of context and particular, policymakers’ limited time and availability to consider different policy issues (Cairney, 2014), this raises questions about the limitations of the scientific and political debate on responses to climate change (Beck, 2010). Considering the importance of Cash’s salience and legitimacy attributes in informing decision-making, and our assessment of the IPCC’s over reliance on the information deficit model discussed above, it is therefore surprising that the local and regional stakeholders and those with local experience and expertise, are not more fully involved in the process. Climate change as a phenomenon has been conceived of and articulated at the global level, predominantly through the IPCC reports. In the United Kingdom, this is reflected by the 2008 Climate Change Act that established a framework for reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by at last 80% in 2050 from 1990 levels, and local climate policy development enacted through National Indicators (NI) carbon emissions targets (DCLG, 2008). Evidence informing decision-making on climate change is therefore grounded in natural science reflecting a scientific consensus on carbon emissions data as opposed to local policy responses to this evidence. Pearce (2014) examines the translation of scientific evidence into climate policy-making at the local level through the NIs concluding that in this instance, the science–policy process “excluded local knowledge about both the contexts for [emissions] and the ability of local PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16058 |DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 |www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 3 authorities to exercise control over the sources of such emissions” (198). Local-scale data is sought by scientist to increase the accuracy of their global models. Similarly scientists are increasingly investigating local impacts of climate change in response to decision maker needs, who themselves are becoming more interested in the transferability and scalability of adaptation and mitigation activities (Cash and Moser, 2000). In considering how to design policy responses to climate adaptation, “upscaling” through the use of local case study analysis, for example, is increasingly seen as a useful evidence-base to develop public policy solutions grounded in contextual research (Larsen et al., 2012). Local policymakers are on the “front line” of local implementation of climate change solutions and therefore contribute to developing locally-based nationally impactful solutions to climate change (Argyriou et al., 2012). They rely on certain types of data such as rainfall, temperature and sea level rise to inform decision-making on issues ranging from energy efficiency, economic development and community well-being and growth, making them important climate change information users and obvious audiences of the IPCC reports (Argyriou et al., 2012). Nonetheless, research into local decision-making on climate change is scarce and requires an “unpacking of the different types of evidence used to inform policy owhich4 should be at the heart of attempts to evaluate policy success” (Pearce, 2014: 199) It has been suggested that the IPCC could do more to be more useful to end-users and enable more actionable decision-making on the issue (Howarth et al., under review); climate scientists could engage more with the local environment within which they reside and work to increase engagement and understanding of the local dimensions of climate change (Howarth and Black, 2015), and to help shape better responses to climate risks and impacts at the local level (Kettle et al., 2014). In practical terms, decisionmakers across different sectors, who rely on climate-related data and information such as climate forecasts, often find the information they are provided to be complex, difficult to understand and requiring a level of translation to ensure suitability to both expert and non-expert users (Dessai et al., 2009). In addition, when considering Cash’s credibility, salience and legitimacy attributes to ensure evidence can be effectively used to inform decision-making, the IPCC falls short in considering the relevance of WGII ARs (salience) and the extent to which these sufficiently consider the needs and values of local decision makers (legitimacy). In order to increase the use of relevant and useful information on climate change to inform decision-making around responses to climate impacts and risks, a better alignment is needed between what scientists perceive as useful evidence and what end-users consider to be usable (Lemos et al., 2012). Research methods We collected data from several interviews with local policy representatives in the East of England, UK, and three workshops with UK academics, practitioners and local decision makers. Interviews. Seven local policy representatives from local councils and local government organizations in the East of England region in the United Kingdom (Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk) which is vulnerable to numerous impacts of climate change including sea level rise, were interviewed to provide a representation of the different types of roles that exist at the local policy level: councillors, climate change officers, developers of local climate change and environment strategies and local government agencies. Preliminary findings from these interviews were presented and discussed at the IPCC’s Expert Meeting on Communication held in Oslo in March 2016 (Painter, 2015b). These are identified in the text below as Local Policymaker (LP) 1, 2 and so on. Interviewees were approached based on their role in shaping climate change policy and decision-making, as well as their knowledge and use of the IPCC reports in informing their decisions. Interviewees’ experience and knowledge of climate change varied with some new to the issue and others having experience in engaging with academic and science literature to inform their decision-making. We chose to focus on three key areas of questioning—the usefulness of the AR reports, their language and clarity, and recommendations for the future (Table 1). Workshops. In order to explore in more detail some of the challenges outlined in this article, and to supplement interview findings, three workshops were conducted in London, United Kingdom. A total of 46 participants were recruited from three categories as defined in Howarth and Monasterolo (2016): (1) scientific/academic community, (2) practitioner community (involved in design and implementation of climate solutions on the ground, can be based in commercial organizations) and (3) decision-making communities (involved in formulating policies and decisions on climate issues). Participants were from a range of backgrounds, expertise and levels of seniority within their organizations to enable a fair and mixed representation of views of those involved in different types of climate-relevant decisionmaking processes at different levels and scales. These individuals were approached based on their knowledge and experience of decision-making on climate change and their use of the IPCC reports (Table 2) and were identified as authors in the climate adaptation literature and/or belonging to institutions conducting work on climate change. Participants therefore where in positions Table 1 | Interview questions