The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) jointly hosted the International Conference on Climate Change and Food Security (ICCCFS) November 6-8, 2011 in Beijing, China. This conference provided a forum for leading international scientists and young researchers to present their latest research findings, exchange their research ideas, and share their experiences in the field of climate change and food security. The event included technical sessions, poster sessions, and social events. The conference results and recommendations were presented at the global climate talks in Durban, South Africa during an official side event on December 1.

1. Lock-in situations in the global
debates on climate change and
biotechnology: Evidence from a global
stakeholder survey
Philipp Aerni
University of Bern and ETH Zurich
International Conference on Climate Change
and Food Security (ICCCFS)
November 6-8, Beijing, China 2011

2. 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

3. 1. Biotechnology and the Environment
Remembering Agenda 21 and Article 19 in the
Convention on Biological Diversity
from Environmentally Sound Technology (EST)
to ‘Toxic Waste’ - without any serious incident
Biotechnology will help transform a problematic
petro-chemical economy into a bio-economy
No matter what is at stake (energy, biodiversity,
climate change, food security), biotech will be
crucial – but it is not considered ‘clean tech’
The issue is hardly touched upon in climate talks
Can we afford this??

4. 2. The purpose of the study
Biotechnology already makes great contributions to
mitigation and adaptation of climate change,
renewables and low-emission industrial products
Why do the global debates not mix?
Is it because framing shapes perception?
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

5. 3. Online Survey with Stakeholders
• Questionnaire Design:
1. Potential of Biotechnology
2. 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

6. Distribution of respondents in terms of
institutional categories

7. Self-assessed familiarity with debates

8. 4. Some Results
1. Descriptive Analysis (General Perception)
2. Perception Pattern Analysis (Clusters, Biplot)
3. Policy Network Analysis (Influence Analysis)

9. Descriptive Analysis:
Assessment of the Potential of Biotechnology

10. Assessment of the Impact of Different Tools

11. Statements related to baseline assumptions

12. Perception Pattern Analysis
Factor Analysis > Determination of Vector Variables based on
questionnaire items
Cluster Analysis (Ward Cluster Method)
& Canonical Discriminant Analysis > Perception Patterns
Biplot Analysis (Visualization technique of PCA)
> Identification of perception of each single respondent
Non-Parametric Tests
Identification of link between educational/institutional
background and perception

13. 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

17. 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

18. Greenpeace and WWF always among the top five
Lock-In Situations (Costs of changing position are too high)

19. 5. Tentative Conclusions
Global stakeholders believe in the potential of biotechnology
Shifting narratives (Baselines assumptions are changing)
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