Guidance on Local Engagement 

Published October 27, 2022

Deliberative engagement at the site of a potential balloon launch is a critical element for the governance of the SCoPEx project. Deliberative engagement is a structured, two-way process, where participants consider evidence and diverse perspectives, ‘deliberate’ options, ask questions, and provide feedback on the proposed experiment and associated activities that can inform next steps and future work.

Societal engagement is one of the five elements of the framework that inform the Advisory Committee’s recommendation on whether and under what conditions the experiment can proceed. This document serves as high level guidance for a local engagement process for the SCoPEx project and will serve as the framework by which the Advisory Committee will assess the research team’s local engagement process. 

Purpose of Local Engagement

The literature firmly establishes the need for broad public engagement in solar geoengineering research(1). A responsible, well built local public engagement process can: 

  • Implement and demonstrate good governance of solar geoengineering research
  • Gauge local community views, concerns, and interest in the proposed experiment among participants who have the opportunity to review briefing information through discussions and deliberative activities 
  • Encourage and enable local participants to disseminate engagement results through their own community networks 
  • Learn of local knowledge, conditions, or concerns that might not otherwise be known to the research team, and provide opportunities for the research team to respond
  • Enhance legitimacy and quality of the research process and outcomes by giving community members opportunities to provide meaningful input on the conduct and directions of the proposed research and reporting back to the local community on the outcomes of engagement

To achieve these goals, the Advisory Committee developed these Guidelines for Local Engagement for the SCoPEx project. 

Recommended Elements of the Local Engagement Process

The Advisory Committee recommends that the Research Team conduct a local engagement process that includes the elements below. The Advisory Committee will provide guidance and support to the research team and engagement facilitator to ensure the goals, process, and expected outputs of the proposed engagement meet the expectations of the Advisory Committee. Outputs from the local engagement will be reviewed by the Advisory Committee and will inform their recommendation(s) to the Vice Provost, including whether to proceed with the experiment and if so, under what conditions.

Independent Engagement Facilitator and Local Partner(s)

An independent engagement facilitator will work with the research team to organize and conduct local engagement activities, advise on briefing materials, produce an analysis of local input for the SCoPEx Advisory Committee and research team, and prepare an accessible summary to share with the public. The engagement process will also include a trusted, local partner to serve as a convener and host for the above work. 

  • The research team should hire an independent engagement facilitator (organization or individual) for the local engagement. The research team should provide their rationale for selecting a facilitator
  • The engagement facilitator should have expertise and experience in designing and facilitating deliberative engagement processes(2) and will not have a real or perceived interest in the outcome of the engagement process, including in whether or not the project ultimately moves forward. 
  • The engagement facilitator will:
    • Design the engagement, set the parameters for a set of participants who are representative of the community, facilitate the engagement, and report on the results.
    • Recruit a local partner or partner(s) who will work with the facilitator to arrange meeting space, recruit participants, and ensure accessibility to the local community. 
    • Determine the timeline of workshops and conduct roughly two to four deliberative workshops (depending on geographical scope of proposed experiment- launch and landing sites), held in places that facilitate easy access for community members / participants. Conduct one workshop online for local participants who are unable to travel to an in-person workshop.
    • Discuss with the research team and Advisory Committee any other such activities that they deem necessary or strongly recommend to conduct a meaningful local engagement process.
    • Within one month of the workshops, the engagement facilitator should provide a publicly-available written summary and analysis of the workshops to the research team and Advisory Committee.

Publicly-Available Briefing Materials

The engagement facilitator and local partner, in consultation with the research team and Advisory Committee, will develop briefing materials (which should include information about how the output of deliberations will be used in the work of the research team and the Advisory Committee). The briefing materials will provide background information on: 

  • Climate change, 
  • Solar geoengineering, 
  • The proposed research and its expected benefits and risks, 
  • The proposed launch, and 
  • The principal arguments for and against (and even neutral ones). For instance, participants might be presented with both the arguments and then counter arguments (e.g., opposed to deployment but research launch is not deployment, or research has more uncertainties than that presented, etc.).

Workshop Participants 

The engagement facilitator and local partner(s) will recruits participants who:

  • Reside in the geographic region of the proposed launch, defined by jurisdictions such as cities, counties, and tribal governments
  • Represent a diverse sample of the local communities, with weighting to historically marginalized voices 
  • Are willing to participate constructively in deliberative exercises and can help disseminate engagement results to other members of their community

Participants will be guaranteed anonymity in all written materials resulting from engagement activities. No participant names or any identifying information will be made public, though participants will be free to disclose their participation if they so desire. 

Workshop Structure and Format

  • Workshop participants deliberate with one another about the proposed launch on topics including:
    • General impressions on the idea of solar geoengineering and research needs
    • Identify any concerns and/or benefits to the local community with research taking place in this location. If there are concerns, might they be allayed and if so, how?
    • Should the launch take place and if so, under what conditions?
    • How should research governance proceed in the future, e.g. if and how future engagements of this type ought to take place?
    • Other topics as recommended by engagement facilitator and local partner 
  • In making their recommendations, participants are encouraged to consider both their local views and concerns, and also the implications of their recommendations for people around the world, now and into the future. Relevant information on the latter should be included in the briefing materials.
  • At least one member of the Advisory Committee will attend each workshop.

Accessibility

The engagement facilitator will ensure that all elements of the local engagement process are accessible to local residents. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Language accessibility in all written and oral formats
  • Mobility accessibility for all participants, in recruitment, conduct, and output of the workshops

Engagement Summary

At a minimum, the engagement facilitator will produce the following documents:

  • A summary report from the engagement facilitator that will be made public and written in accessible, non-technical language
  • The SCoPEx Advisory Committee will share the final recommendation(s) that it makes to Harvard University with the communities that participated in the engagement process. 

(1) Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262-294.
Shepherd, J. G. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society.
NASEM (2021). Reflecting sunlight: recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance.
Washington DC: The National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25762
Patt et al. (2022). Chapter 14: International Cooperation. In Skea et al. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(2) There are many examples of deliberative engagement conducted by multiple organizations. We believe that the types of engagement conducted by the following groups are useful starting points.
Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University (https://cspo.org/)
Understanding Risk Research Group, Cardiff University