Philipp Aerni — Lock in situations in the global debates on climate change and biotechnology ...

Lock-in situations in the global debates on climate change and

biotechnology: Evidence from a global stakeholder survey

Philipp AerniUniversity of Bern and ETH Zurich

International Conference on Climate Change and Food Security (ICCCFS)

November 6-8, Beijing, China 2011

Table of Contents

1. Biotechnology and the Environment

2. The purpose of the study

3. Online Survey with Stakeholders

4. Cluster and Policy Network Analysis

5. Concluding Remarks

1. Biotechnology and the Environment

Remembering Agenda 21 and Article 19 in the Convention on Biological Diversity

No matter what is at stake (energy, biodiversity,climate change, food security), biotech will be crucial – but it is not considered ‘clean tech’

from Environmentally Sound Technology (EST)to ‘Toxic Waste’ - without any serious incident

Biotechnology will help transform a problematicpetro-chemical economy into a bio-economy

The issue is hardly touched upon in climate talksCan we afford this??

2. The purpose of the study

Is it because framing shapes perception?

Biotechnology already makes great contributions tomitigation and adaptation of climate change,renewables and low-emission industrial products

Why do the global debates not mix?

Is it because of influential stakeholders want to keep the debates apart?How much does institutional and educational background matter?

Global Stakeholder Survey on CC and Biotech

3. Online Survey with Stakeholders

• Questionnaire Design:1. Potential of Biotechnology2. Statements (Baseline Assumptions)3. Policy Network Table (Assessed Influence)4. General Information (Educational Background)

• Pre-Tests, Consultation of Key Informants

• Online Survey (1 July to 1 November 2010)

• 55 Stakeholders representing 44 institutions > 80% response rate> 73% with a PhD

Distribution of respondents in terms ofinstitutional categories

Self-assessed familiarity with debates

4. Some Results

3. Policy Network Analysis (Influence Analysis)

2. Perception Pattern Analysis (Clusters, Biplot)

1. Descriptive Analysis (General Perception)

Descriptive Analysis:Assessment of the Potential of Biotechnology

Assessment of the Impact of Different Tools

Statements related to baseline assumptions

Perception Pattern Analysis

Cluster Analysis (Ward Cluster Method) & Canonical Discriminant Analysis > Perception Patterns

Factor Analysis > Determination of Vector Variables based on questionnaire items

Biplot Analysis (Visualization technique of PCA)> Identification of perception of each single respondent

Non-Parametric Tests Identification of link between educational/institutionalbackground and perception

Cluster and Biplot Analysis

Cluster Analysis reveals two large clusters of equal size, one cluster half the size and a fringe cluster (3 obs)

Canonical Discriminant Analysis reveals that there is a significant relationship between the canonical variates and the clusters

Policy Network Analyis (Stakeholder assessment)

1. How well-known is the actor?

2. Influence on global public opinion

3. Influence on the biotechnology debate

4. Influence on the climate change debate

Greenpeace and WWF always among the top fiveLock-In Situations (Costs of changing position are too high)

5. Tentative Conclusions

Shifting narratives (Baselines assumptions are changing)

Global stakeholders believe in the potential of biotechnology

Fringe perception of powerful actors ensure deadlock

Lock-In situations of the powerful actors explain why shifting narratives do not - translate into new public policy, - change the education system and - lead to a reframe of sustainable development