LIST OF WORKSHOPS

1) A workshop to discuss the initial results of a research project

This workshop is part of an ongoing international comparative research project involving 10 countries (APIICC, launched in 2024 and funded by the French National Research Agency, ANR: https://anr.fr/en/funded-projects-and-impact/funded-projects/project/funded/project/b2d9d3668f92a3b9fbbf7866072501ef-3fa1677a1c/? tx_anrprojects_funded%5Bcontroller%5D=Funded&cHash=38bfae620e2a063bf8a92409549bba9a).

2) Issues addressed

While climate change (CC) is a physical change, it is a political challenge too. The debates during the last COP show that expectations are very high regarding policies to support adaptation and mitigation. National and local climate plans and their policy instruments have proliferated since the late 2000s (Peters, Tosun, 2021; Lesnikowski, 2017; Massey et al. 2014; Milhorance et al., 2022; UNFCCC NDC Registry). However, first, they are often considered too modest to challenge CC and, second and above all, climate risk is often amplified by the risk of bad governance (policy implementation gap - Dupuis, Knoeffel, 2014; Giles et al., 2021-, lack of coordination, deficit of policy integration, slow implementation of climate plans due to incremental change - Mushtaq, 2018; Levin et al., 2012-, bureaucratic traditions and policy styles - Peters, 2021-, that lock in older policy choices and change perspectives - Groen et al. 2022; Rosenbloom, 2018) that slow down climate action. The ‘Climate super wicked problem’ becomes a ‘tragedy’ because ‘time is running out’ (Levin et al., 2012).

Faced with this general statement, CC must be addressed by substantial technical and financial policy instruments and, at the same time, by suitable governance.

Therefore, the main assumption of the APIICC project is that institutional innovation (Patterson & Huitema, 2019) in the procedural instruments for climate governance is one of the main ways to end the ‘tragedy’ for improving climate policy efficiency. Procedural instruments are “designed to indirectly affect outcomes through the manipulation of policy process” (Howlett, 2008). Unlike traditional “substantive” instruments, which directly affect the delivery of goods and services in society (incentives for resource conservation or agroecology practices, etc.), “procedural” policy instruments are intended to manage state-societal interactions in order to ensure general support for government aims and initiatives (Howlett, 2008) and process aspects of policy-making rather than its substance Procedural tools are policy techniques or mechanisms designed to affect how a policy is formulated and implemented (Bali et al., 2021). Procedural instruments are therefore technical tools for the mechanics of policy governance, instruments for (following Singh Bali et al., 2021). In other words, they are instruments for governance whose innovation could improve the latter. The APIICC project focuses on two aspects in particular: to what extent can institutional innovation improve the integration of the long-term impact of CC in today's agricultural public policies? To what extent can institutional innovation accelerate their implementation?

This debate concerning procedural instruments and governance is intertwined with that of polycentric governance vs. environmental authoritarianism. Indeed, literature opposes two ways to stop the ‘tragedy’, treating this issue of authority in a binary way (Wong, 2016; Mittiga, 2025): authoritarian interventions vs. institutional innovation for polycentric governance. On the one hand, authoritarian environmentalism is declared more efficient than democracy as it produces outcomes more easily (China case), because it is less short-termist and exposes its leaders to less blame (Gilley, 2012). Democratic legitimacy would decrease and authoritarianism would have more secure legitimacy (Mittiga, 2021, 2025) facing long-term climate issues. However, this debate must be qualified: some studies have questioned the influence of disasters on the transformation of political regimes: the more authoritarian regimes are, the more vulnerable to disasters they are (Pelling, 2010). Moreover, environmental authoritarianism seems politically perilous insofar as ‘big bang’ policies for super wicked problems that change all individual behaviors fail to garner adequate support and produce societal ‘shocks’ that hamper implementation and compliance (Levin et al., 2012).

On the other hand, in open regimes with polycentric governance, the literature on new environmental policy instruments (Jordan et al., 2013) has observed a decline in authoritarian/hierarchical instruments (“sticks”) in favor of flexible and voluntary instruments (‘incentives’ and “nodality”) (Lascoumes, Valluy, 1997; Lascoumes, Simard, 2011; Jordan et al., 2003). Regulatory pluralism is common (Pacheco-Vega, 2019), mixing coercive and flexible instruments. The question that arises here is: to what extent do innovative procedural instruments for climate governance incorporate authority in order to enable both polycentrism (Jordan et al., 2018) and open governance, as well as the ability to impose rapid action on the complex issue of climate and move directly towards “environmental ends” (Wong, 2016)?

In any case, this literature is useful in showing that policy instruments, and procedural instruments in particular, provide a privileged basis for observing these policies and institutional innovation in governance.

3) Relevance of the workshop

The relevance of the workshop is to compare the initial results of the APIICC project with those of other researchers around the world who are working in general on climate governance and questioning the relationship between institutional innovation and governance in managing the climate “tragedy” highlight by Levin & al. (2012). Firstly, beyond the case of agriculture, the aim will be to take stock of the types of innovation, particularly in terms of procedural instruments, that are emerging in climate policy governance. Secondly, the aim will be to understand the processes of innovation in climate governance (policy objectives, policy processes, types of innovation and innovators). Thirdly, it will be necessary to understand how these instruments are changing climate governance. Finally, fourthly, it will be necessary to clarify the debate between environmental authoritarianism and institutional innovation in order to improve the polycentric governance of climate policies.

4) Five objectives of the workshop

Objective 1: to take stock, at the midway point, of the progress of the work and the initial results of the APIICC project. The project researchers will present the results in different countries/case studies.

Objective 2: Provide answers and empirical results to the two main questions addressed in point 1), based on completed or ongoing empirical research, regardless of the countries or public policy sectors studied.

Objective 3: Compare these results with those of researchers studying these issues in sectors other than climate policy (energy, transport, etc.).

Objective 4: The third objective is to prepare publications (a book and a special issue of the journal Climat Governance Innovation and Improvement).

Objective 5: List possible theoretical approaches to the relationship between institutional innovation and climate governance.

Based on the four objectives outlined in the section on the workshop's questions and main objectives, some of the papers will be produced by the APIICC international project research team (on case studies and countries in Africa, Latin America, the US, and Europe), and of course another large part will be produced by researchers outside the APIICC project. Regardless of their origin, the articles must fall within the scope of work on climate governance and, in particular, the role played by procedural instruments, regardless of the public policy sector. They may be based on any type of research method, as the objective is to discuss the results of the APIICC project with those concerning other climate policy sectors.

They should either describe in detail procedural instruments invented with the aim of improving climate governance, or the process of their policy making, or their implementation, or the types of institutional innovation, or the profiles or strategies of innovators. Papers may, of course, cover several of these topics. Particular attention will be given to articles focusing on the debate between polycentric governance and authority. Papers may concern all types of instruments: those supporting climate finance governance or those supporting the governance of substantive technical instruments. The APIICC project addresses each of these points.

Finally, papers submitted next June should be as complete as possible so that they can be published fairly quickly after the IPPA workshop.

This workshop aims to discuss existing work on institutional innovation in climate policy governance. Its objective is to understand: what are these innovations, what innovative governance instruments are involved? Who are the innovators? What are the controversies surrounding possible innovations? What are their policy making and implementation processes? What are the theoretical interpretations of these issues? The team behind an ongoing international research project will present its findings for discussion with researchers focusing on the same issues. One of the objectives is to publish a book and/or special journal issues.

Biabiani O., Massardier G., Montouroy Y. (2022). The Implementation Process of Agriculture Adaptation Instruments to Climate Change. The Invisibilization of European Climate Policy Goals in French West Indies’s Banana Chain International Journal of Agriculture System. Accepted. Forthcoming

Bednar D., Henstra D., McBean G. (2019). The governance of climate change adaptation: are networks to blame for the implementation deficit? Journal Of Environmental Policy & Planning. Vol. 21/6, p. 702–717.

Bemelmans M.L., Rist R.C., Verdung E.O. (eds) (1998). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publisher, 

Biesbroek, R., Termeer, C.J., Klostermann, J. E., and Kabat, P. (2014). Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 19, no. 7, 1011–1032.

Biesbroek R.,Lesnikowski A., D. Ford J.D. ,Berrang-Ford L., Vink M.  (2018). Do Administrative Traditions Matter for Climate Change Adaptation Policy? A Comparative Analysis of 32 High-Income Countries. Journal of Policy Research. Vol. 35/6 :Pages 881-906

Biesbroek, R., Candel, J. (2020). Mechanisms for Policy (Dis)Integration: Explaining Food Policy and Climate Change Adaptation Policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences 53, no1, pp. 61-84

Briody, E. K., & Erickson, K. C. (2014). Success despite the Silos: System-Wide Innovation and Collaboration. International Journal of Business Anthropology, 5(1).

Boutroue, B., Hrabanski, M. & Diao Camara, A. (2022). Gouverner l’adaptation de l’agriculture au changement climatique par projet : Les limites de la climatisation des politiques agricoles au Sénégal. Gouvernement et action publique, vol. 11, 99-125

Caldas de Lima E., G. Massardier G. (2020). Les paradoxes de l’adaptation de l’agriculture au changement climatique (AACC) dans l’Etat de Sao Paulo. La coordination des politiques à l’épreuve des agendas fragmentés, des instruments et mise en oeuvre sectoriels et contrastés. Confins. n° 46

Campbell, B. (2022). Climate change impacts and adaptation options in the agrifood system – A summary of recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report findings. Rome, FAO.

Colloff M.J. & al. (2017). An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy. 68. p. 87–96

Dubash N.K. (2021). Varieties of climate governance: the emergence and functioning of climate institutions, Environmental Politics, 30:sup1, 1-25

Dubash N.K., Sridhar (2022). Climate priorities: Tackling climate governance in India. International Growth Centre (IGC). Blog, LSE, University of Oxford, https://www.theigc.org/blogs/climate-priorities-developing-countries/climate-priorities-tackling-climate-governance-india

Dupuis, J., P. Knoepfel P. (2013). The adaptation policy paradox: the implementation deficit of policies framed as climate change adaptation. Ecology and Society 18(4): 31. 

Folke Carl. (2007). Social–ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecological research. vol. 22, no 1, p. 14-15

Giles J, Grosjean G, Le Coq J-F, Huber B, Bui VL and Läderach P (2021) Barriers to Implementing Climate Policies in Agriculture: A Case Study From Viet Nam. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:439881

Gilley B. (2012) Authoritarian environmentalism and China's response to climate change, Environmental Politics, 21:2, 287-307

Groen L., Alexander M., King J.P., Jager N.W., Huitema D. (2023). Re-examining policy stability in climate adaptation through a lock-in perspective, Journal of European Public Policy, 30:3, 488-512

Hrabanski M. (2020). Une climatisation des enjeux agricoles par la science- ? Les controverses relatives à la climate-smart agriculture. Critique internationale 2020/1, N° 86, p. 189-208

Hrabanski M., Le Coq J.F., Massardier G. (2021) Governing the Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Comparing Analysis by Policy Instruments from Global North and South. Panel RC30.06, Adapting to Climate Change: Can Innovative Policies and Their Diffusion Make the Difference?,  IPSA congress, Lisbon, July 12, 2021   International Political Science Association Congress, 10-15/07/2021

Howlett (2017). Chapter 6: Policy tools and their role in policy formulation: dealing with procedural and substantive instruments. Handbook of policy formulation. Edward Elgar

Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes, and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice an policy design. Policy Sciences. 42/1. p.73-89.

Hughes I., Byrne E., Glatz-Schmallegger M., Harris C., Hynes W., Keohane K., Gallachóir B.O. (2021) Deep Institutional Innovation for Sustainability and Human Development, World Futures, 77:5, 371-394

ICPP (2007). AR4 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

ICPP (2022). IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. The Working Group II contribution. United Nations. 

Jacobs A. (2016). Policy Making for the Long Term in Advanced Democracies. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol.19, p.433–54

Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Schoenefeld, J., van Asselt, H. (2018). Governing climate change Polycentrically : Setting the Scene. in Jordan et al. (ed.), Governing climate change : Polycentricity in Action ?, Cambridge University Press, p. 3–26.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. & Zito, A. R. (2003). 'New' instruments of environmental governance: Patterns and pathways of change.

Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Hildén, M. et al. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change 5, p. 977–982

Jordan A., Huitema D. (2014) Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics. 23:5, 715-734

Lee S., Paavola J., Dessai S. (2022).Towards a deeper understanding of barriers to national climate change adaptation policy: A systematic review. Climate Risk Management. Vol. 35, 2022, 100414

Lindvall D. (2021). Democracy and the challenge of climate change. International IDEA Discussion Paper 3, 78 p.

Massardier G. (2022), Cross-cutting or not cross-cutting? The variables of (Dis)integration processes during the implementation of Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change, IPPA Workshop. Budapest. June 26-28, 2022, Panel T01/W05. Climate Policy Integration at Stake [https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/conference/iwpp3-budapest/panel-list/15/panel/climate-policy-integration-at-stake/1252]

Massey E., Biesbroek R., Huitema D., Jordan A. (2014). Climate policy innovation: The adoption and diffusion of adaptation policies across Europe. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 29. 2014. pp. 434-443

Mees H., Driessen P.P.J. (2019). A framework for assessing the accountability of local governance arrangements for adaptation to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 62(1), p. 1-21

Mittiga, R. (2022). Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 998-1011

Mittiga, R. (2025). How to confront no ordinary danger. Journal of Democracy, 36(1), 151–161.

Milhorance C., Sabourin E., Chechi L., Mendes P., (2022), The politics of climate change adaptation in Brazil: framings and policy outcomes for the rural sector. Environmental Politics, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 183–204. 

Moore M. & Hartley J. (2008). Innovations in governance, Public Management Review. vol. 10:1, pp. 3-20

Nightingale A.J. (2017). Authority and recognition in the context of political instability. Geoforum. Volume 84,, p. 11-20 

Ojha H. R., Ghimire S., Pain A., Nightingale A., Khatri D. B., Dhungana H. (2016). Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal. Climate Policy. Vol. 16/4, p. 415-433. 

Peters G. (2021). Administrative Traditions: Understanding the Roots of Contemporary Administrative Behavior. Oxford University Press

Povitkina, M., ‘The limits of democracy in tackling climate change’, Environmental Politics, 27/3 (2018), pp. 411–432

Povitkina, M. and Jagers, C. S. (2021). Environmental Commitments in Different Types of Democracies: The Role of Liberal, Social-Liberal, and Deliberative Politics. Working Paper No. 117 (Gothenberg: V-Dem Institute, 2021) [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3810624]

Manevska-Tasevska G., Petitt A, Larsson S., Bimbilovski I., Meuwissen M. P. M., Feindt P.H., Urquhart J. (2021). Adaptive Governance and Resilience Capacity of Farms: The Fit Between Farmers’ Decisions and Agricultural Policies. Frontiers In Environnemental Sciences. 14 June. 

Mushtaq S. (2018). Managing climate risks through transformational adaptation: Economic and policy implications for key production regions in Australia. Climate Risk Management, Vol. 19, p. 48-60

Pacheco-Vega, R. 2020. Environmental regulation, governance, and policy instruments, 20 years after the stick, carrot, and sermon typology. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22, 620-635

Patterson J.J., & Huitema D. (2019) Institutional innovation in urban governance: The case of climate change adaptation, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62:3, 374-398

Pelling M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge

Runhaar H, Wilk B. et al. (2018). Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about ‘what works’ from empirical research worldwide. Regional Environmental Change. 18(1), p. 1-10

Schaffin A., Sewerin S., Seubert S. (2015).Toward a Comparative Measure of Climate Policy Output. Policy Studies Journal. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2. p. 257-282

Tosun J., Peter G. (2021). The politics of climate change: Domestic and international responses to a global challenge. International Political Science Review. vol 42/1, p. 3-15

Ulibarri N., Ajibade I., Galappaththi E. K., Tom Joe E., Lesnikowski A., Mach K. J., Musah-Surugu J.I., Nagle Alverio G., Segnon A. C., Siders A.R., Sotnik G., Campbell D., Chalastani V.I., Jagannathan K., Khavhagali V., Reckien D., Shang Y., Singh C., Zommers Z. & The Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative Team (2022). A global assessment of policy tools to support climate adaptation. Climate Policy. 22:1, 77-96

Termeer C.J.A.M, Dewulf A., Biesbroek G.R. (2017) Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60:4, 558-576

Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Magro, E., Wilson, J.R., Sotarauta, M. (2017). Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning Environment and Planning. Politics and Space, 35(4), 559–568.

Wong, J. K. (2015). A Dilemma of Green Democracy. Political Studies, 64(1_suppl), 136-155

World Bank (2022). Open Government and Climate Change: Leveraging Transparency, Participation, and Accountability for Effective Climate Action. Climate Governance Papers