İklim Değişikliği Odaklı Politika Üretim ve Planlama Süreçlerinde Bilim-Politika Arayüzlerinin Yeri: İstanbul ve İzmir Kalkınma Ajansları

Bu çalışma, iklim değişikliğine dair politika üretme ve planlama süreçlerinde, bilgi üreticiler ve politika yapıcılar/plancıların etkileşim kurabilmeleri için oluşturulan bilim-politika arayüzlerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada, iklim değişikliği tehdidine karşı etkin politikalar/planlar geliştirebilmek için bilgi üreticiler ve politika yapıcılar/plancıların birlikte bilgi, politika ve aksiyon ürettikleri “ortak üretim temelli bilim-politika arayüzleri”nin kurulması gerektiği iddia edilmektedir. Araştırma iki ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. Öncelikle, “bilgi”, “bilimsel bilgi” ve “bilim-politika arayüzleri” kavramları bağlamında teorik çerçeve sunulmaktadır. Sonrasında, bilim-politika arayüzlerinin pratikteki karşılığını araştırmak üzere, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı (İSTKA) ve İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı (İZKA)’nın incelendiği vaka çalışmasının sonuçları tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, İZKA’nın iklim değişikliğini faaliyetlerinin merkezine yerleştirip konuya dair etkin bilim-politika arayüzleri oluşturduğu, İSTKA’nın ise iklim değişikliğini ancak diğer öncelik alanları içerisine bir “ortak yarar” olarak dahil ettiği ve iklim değişikliğine yönelik bilim-politika arayüzleri faaliyetlerinin İZKA’ya kıyasla yetersiz kaldığı tespit edilmiştir.

The Science-Policy Interfaces in Climate Change-Related Policymaking and Planning Processes: Istanbul and Izmir Development Agencies

This study focuses on the science-policy interfaces established for knowledge producers and policymakers/planners to interact in policymaking and planning processes regarding climate change. The study claims that in order to develop effective policies/plans against the threat of climate change, it is necessary to create “coproduction- based science-policy interfaces” in which knowledge producers and policymakers/planners produce knowledge, policy, and action together. The exploration is divided into two main parts. Primarily, the theoretical framework of the study in the context of the concepts of “knowledge”, “scientific knowledge”, and “science-policy interfaces” is presented. Afterward, to investigate the science-policy interfaces in practice, the results of the case study, which examines the Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA) and the Izmir Development Agency (İZKA), are discussed. The findings of this study demonstrate that IZKA prioritizes climate change and creates effective science-policy interfaces regarding climate change-related issues, whereas ISTKA regards climate change only as a “co-benefit” within the other priority areas of the agency and, at least compared to IZKA, its activities on climate change focused science-policy interfaces are passive and insufficient.

___

  • Abadie, L. M., Saim de Murieta, E., Galarraga, I. (2016). Climate Risk Assessment under Uncertainty: An Application to Main European Coastal Cities. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 1-13.
  • Adaman, F., Arsel, M. (2016). Climate Policy in Turkey: A Paradoxical Situation?. L'Europe en Formation, (2), 26-38.
  • Beck, S. (2016). Knowledge Co-Production: Lures and Pitfalls [Webinar]. The Integrated Assessment Society. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tiasweb. info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/KnowledgeCoProduction_Lures_ and_Pitfalls_S_Beck.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02.2021).
  • BMÇP. (2017). Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface: A Gap Analysis. Nairobi.
  • BMÇP. (2014). The Adaptation Gap Report 2014. Nairobi.
  • Bulkeley H. (2011) Cities and Subnational Governments. J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, D. Schlosberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society içinde (ss. 464-478). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  • Bultitude, K., Rodari, P., Weitkamp, E. (2012). Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy: The Importance of Mutual Respect, Trust and the Role of Mediators. Online Journal of Science Communication, 11(3), 1-4.
  • Choi, B. C., Li, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, L. R., Zhu, Y., Pak, A. W., Little, J. (2016). Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy: An International Survey of Scientists and Policy Makers in China and Canada. Implementation Science, 11(1).
  • Compston, H., Bailey, I. (Ed.). (2008). Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies. Springer.
  • Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making Science Relevant to Environmental Policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(1), 21-30.
  • Dilling, L., Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating Usable Science: Opportunities and Constraints for Climate Knowledge Use and Their Implications for Science Policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680-689.
  • Dunn, G., Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R. (2018). Mediating the Science-Policy Interface: Insights from the Urban Water Sector in Melbourne, Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 82, 143-150.
  • Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Van Schie, N. (2011). Co-Producing Knowledge: Joint Knowledge Production Between Experts, Bureaucrats and Stakeholders in Dutch Water Management Projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(6), 675-684.
  • Erbil, T., Erbil, A. Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajanslarının 2010-2017 Yılları Arasında İklim Değişikliğine Yönelik Faaliyetleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Planlama Dergisi, 29(1), 10-22.
  • Gedikli, B., Balaban, O. (2018). An Evaluation of Local Policies and Actions that Address Climate Change in Turkish Metropolitan Cities. European Planning Studies, 26(3), 458-479.
  • Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of Science. G. E. Markle, S. Jasanoff, J. C. Petersen, T. Pinch (Ed.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies içinde (ss. 393-443). Sage Publications.
  • Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the Boundary Between US Politics and Science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87-111.
  • Haug, C., Rayner, T., Jordan, A., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., Monni, S., & Berkhout, F. (2010). Navigating the Dilemmas of Climate Policy in Europe: Evidence from Policy Evaluation Studies. Climatic Change, 101(3), 427-445.
  • Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising Joint Knowledge Production in Regional Climate Change Adaptation Projects: Success Conditions and Levers for Action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52-65.
  • Hering, J. G. (2016). Do We Need “More Research” or Better Implementation Through Knowledge Brokering?. Sustainability Science, 11(2), 363-369.
  • IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104.
  • IPCC. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  • Iyalomhe, F., Jensen, A., Critto, A., & Marcomini, A. (2013). The Science- Policy Interface for Climate Change Adaptation: The Contribution of Communities of Practice Theory. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(6), 368-380.
  • İSTKA. (2014). 2014-2023 İstanbul Bölge Planı. Erişim Adresi: https:// www.istka.org.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2020).
  • İSTKA. (2019). 2019 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu. Erişim Adresi: https://www.istka. org.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2020).
  • İZKA. (2014). 2014-2023 İzmir Bölge Planı. Erişim Adresi: http://www. izka.org.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2020).
  • İZKA. (2019). Endüstriyel Simbiyoz Yerel Paydaş Çalıştayı Gerçekleştirildi. Erişim Adresi: http://www.izka.org.tr/haberler/endustriyel-simbiyoz. html (Erişim Tarihi: 01.08.2020).
  • İZKA. (2020a). 2020 Çalışma Programı. Erişim Adresi: http://www.izka. org.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 28.07.2020).
  • İZKA. (2020b). Kaynak Verimliliği İçin Atıktan Hammaddeye Dönüşüm. Erişim Adresi: http://www.izka.org.tr/tr/kaynak-verimliligi (Erişim Tarihi: 01.08.2020).
  • İZKA. (2021). Yeşil Büyüme. Erişim Adresi: https://izka.org.tr/yesil-buyume/ (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2021).
  • İZKA ve TTGV. (t.y.). İzmir Eko-Verimlilik (Temiz Üretim) Programı. Erişim Adresi: https://en.ttgv.org.tr/content/docs/izmir-eko-verimlilikprogrami- brosuru.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.03.2021).
  • Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., Goering, P. (2004). Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers’ Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246-259.
  • Jasanoff, S. (1994). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. London & Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2011). Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology. J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, D. Schlosberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society içinde (ss. 129-143). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: an Interactive Approach. London: Sage Publications.
  • Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., Wall, T. (2015). Moving Toward the Deliberate Coproduction of Climate Science Knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 179-191.
  • MedECC. (2018). MedECC side-event during COP24 conference: A science- policy interface on risks of climate and environmental change in the Mediterranean region. MedECC. Erişim Adresi: https://www.medecc. org/1844/ (Erişim Tarihi: 08.02.2021).
  • Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729-768.
  • Moser, S. C., Dilling, L. (2011). Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science-Action Gap. J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, D. Schlosberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society içinde (ss. 161-174). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  • Nature (2019) Scientists worldwide join strikes for climate change. Erişim Adresi: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02791-2 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2021).
  • Newman, J., Head, B. W. (2015). Categories of Failure in Climate Change Mitigation Policy in Australia. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3- 4), 342-358.
  • O’Brien, K. (2013). Global Environmental Change III: Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Action. Progress in Human Geography, 37(4), 587- 596.
  • Ramos-Vielba, I., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Woolley, R. (2015). Scientific Research Groups’ Cooperation with Firms and Government Agencies: Motivations and Barriers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 558-585.
  • Ryan, D., Bustos, E. (2019) Knowledge Gaps and Climate Adaptation Policy: A Comparative Analysis Of Six Latin American Countries. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1297-1309.
  • Smith, A. (2007). Emerging in Between: The Multi-Level Governance of Renewable Energy in the English Regions. Energy Policy, 35(12), 6266- 6280.
  • Sovacool, B. K., Brown, M. A. (2009). Scaling the Policy Response to Climate Change. Policy and Society, 27(4), 317-328.
  • Soyer, T. [@tuncsoyer] (2021, Nisan 5). Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği 5. Toplantısı'na kentimiz ev sahipliği yapıyor. [Tweet]. Twitter. Erişim Adresi: https://twitter.com/tuncsoyer/status/1379020953506754564 (Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2021).
  • T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı. (2018). Bakanlıklara Bağlı, İlgili, İlişkili Kurum ve Kuruluşlar ile Diğer Kurum ve Kuruluşların Teşkilatı Hakkında Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamesi. Erişim Adresi: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ MevzuatMetin/19.5.4.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2021).
  • Thunberg, G. (2019). Voices Leading the Next Generation on the Global Climate Crisis. Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment, with the House Select Committee on
  • the Climate Crisis (September 18, 2019). Erişim Adresi: https://foreignaffairs. house.gov/2019/9/voices-leading-the-next-generation-on-theglobal- climate-crisis (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2021).
  • Turhan, E., Cerit Mazlum, S., Şahin, Ü., Şorman, A. H., Cem Gündoğan, A. (2016). Beyond Special Circumstances: Climate Change Policy in Turkey 1992–2015. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(3), 448-460.
  • UNCCD. (2021). The Science-Policy Interface. Erişim Adresi: https://knowledge. unccd.int/science-policy-interface (Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2021). Van den Hove, S. (2007). A Rationale for Science–Policy Interfaces. Futures, 39(7), 807-826.
  • Van Stigt, R., Driessen, P. P., Spit, T. J. (2015). A User Perspective on the Gap Between Science and Decision-Making. Local Administrators’ Views on Expert Knowledge in Urban Planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 47, 167-176.
  • Wall, T. U., Meadow, A. M., Horganic, A. (2017). Developing Evaluation Indicators to Improve the Process of Coproducing Usable Climate Science. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(1), 95-107.
  • Wan, K., Shackley, S., Doherty, R. M., Shi, Z., Zhang, P., & Golding, N. (2020). Science-Policy Interplay on Air Pollution Governance in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 150-157.
  • Wang, Z., Tan, P. Y., Zhang, T., Nassauer, J. I. (2014). Perspectives on Narrowing the Action Gap Between Landscape Science and Metropolitan Governance: Practice in the US and China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 329-334.
  • Wyborn, C. (2015). Co-Productive Governance: A Relational Framework for Adaptive Governance. Global Environmental Change, 30, 56-67.
  • Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Van Kerkhoff, L. (2019). Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44(1), 319-346.