coversheet Yaminetal.pdfNorlin Library Reserves, 184 UCB or [email protected] coversheet Yaminetal.pdfNorlin Library Reserves, 184 UCB or [email protected] of Colorado at Boulder | University Libraries | Circulation Services e-Reserves: Cover Sheet This cover sheet must accompany each item request. Professor’s Name William R. Travis Professor’s E-mail [email protected]’s Campus Box 260 Course Number (eg HIST1234) Department (eg: HIST) GEOG Number (eg: 1234) 2412 Semester & Year Fall, 2006 Author Yaminetal et al. Title Perspectives on Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference Check in Chinook Catalog XXX UCB Libraries owns a copy of the original ___ UCB Libraries does not own a copy of the original ___ I don't know if the UCB Libraries owns a copy of the original. Please be sure to complete all lines above. Keep a copy of each file you send us. At the end of each semester, we delete all items from the reserve listings and from the reserve server. Send this form to Norlin Library Reserves, 184 UCB or [email protected] 10Perspectives on ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’; or How to OperationalizeArticle 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeFarhana Yamin, Joel B. Smith and Ian Burton110.1 IntroductionScience forms the backbone of the international climatechange regime. The negotiation and entry into force ofthe 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) in only four years, was due, in large part, to thestrong international scientific consensus on the need for aconvention – the draft elements of which were appendedto the first scientific assessment report produced by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in1990 (Bodansky, 1993). Although more circumspect interms of policy recommendations, the IPCC’s Second andThird Assessment Reports generated significant momen-tum for the negotiations leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocoland decisions subsequently adopted by the UNFCCCConference of the Parties (COP) in 2001, the MarrakeshAccords, that enabled the Protocol’s entry into force inFebruary 2005.What contribution will the Exeter conference and theFourth Assessment Report (FAR), scheduled for comple-tion in 2007, make to future climate policy? An impor-tant focus of attention for scientists and policy makers inthe coming decade will most likely be on making opera-tional sense of Article 2 of the Convention: avoidance ofdangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate sys-tem. The crucial science/policy issues would thus be howArticle 2 relates to future efforts (under the UNFCCC,Kyoto and/or a new legal instrument) to prevent climatechange (mitigation) as well as how it provides policyguidance for dealing with adverse impacts and potentialbeneficial opportunities (adaptation).This paper does not attempt to provide an answer towhat constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interferencewith the climate system. Instead, it reviews some of thevarious perspectives on Article 2 that have emerged overthe last 15 years of negotiations, as ways have been soughtto arrive at a common understanding. It then offers anassessment of the current situation of a dangerous changein climate. The paper aims to catalyze future science/pol-icy discussions by providing an overview of the mainapproaches to Article 2 and some sense of history abouthow changing science/policy considerations have createdchallenges for climate science and policy. It then focuseson three issues germane to the evolution and operation ofArticle 2 that have been, in our view, relatively neglectedin climate literature related to Article 2, namely: the cat-egorization of climate change in terms of timing, scale andtypes of impacts; the role of adaptation; and the develop-ment of a new process of global decision-making or nego-tiations that can accommodate divergent human values.We conclude by suggesting that the categorization ofclimate impacts (geophysical, biophysical, human healthand wellbeing) and the scale at which impacts are assessedare critical for determining what may be a ‘dangerous’level of climate change. To date, the scientific communityhas been given insufficient guidance about scale and cate-gorization issues in policy processes. Unless remedied, theresulting lacunae will, by default, be filled by scientistsresorting to familiar mental frameworks and unexplainedvalues and preferences which may or may not accord withthe perception, values and framework of policy-makers orbroader publics. This would not likely lead to effectiveimplementation of Article 2 given that a number of levelsof dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) can legiti-mately be chosen for the purposes of climate policy.Our conclusions about the way in which values areinterlaced with ‘technical’ issues in a unique way in climatechange suggest that process issues are of critical concern,particularly in terms of who makes decisions and the valuesembedded in those decisions. The setting of any climategoal or target, long or short term, should be the result ofinformed dialogue between researchers, negotiators, andthe public. Thus, a crucial part of the next phase of theclimate science/policy nexus is development of a processwhich can enable a full and open discussion on Article 2and lead to a consensus and resolution on shorter termaspects of climate policy such as targets and timetables.10.2 Perspectives on Article 2The definition or framing of a problem plays an impor-tant part in shaping subsequent institutional and politicalresponses, including which kind of knowledge will be con-sidered relevant for devising solutions. Climate change wasidentified as a problem by scientists and came to be framedas an international environmental problem. Even thoughclimate change profoundly implicates economic, socialand political developments which are the responsibility1Farhana Yamin, Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, Uni-versity of Sussex, UK. Joel Smith, Vice President, Stratus Consulting,USA. Ian Burton, Scientist Emeritus, Meteorological Service of Canada &Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, Canada.of treasuries and economic and planning ministries, theinitial framing meant ministries of the environment weretypically given lead responsibilities over climate change.10.2.1 Environmental Standard ApproachesAlthough core economic and development actors are nowbeginning to take a more active interest in climate change,the basic