2 - Global Climate Governance after Paris
Setting the Stage for Experimentation?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Summary
The 2015 Paris Agreement signals a new approach to global climate governance, in not only following a “pledge-and-review” approach to national action, but also in supporting climate action by non-state actors. This chapter examines how far this new approach can be deemed to be experimentalist by focusing on four elements drawn from the global experimentalist governance literature, namely: the setting of framework goals and metrics in an open, participatory process involving a broad group of stakeholders; decentralised implementation; distributed monitoring and reporting; and ongoing evaluation and revision of the goals and metrics in the light of experience. It concludes that the post-Paris climate governance architecture does display some of these elements. However, it suggests that this may mean either that climate governance eventually starts to resemble global experimentalist governance, or that the latter represents a type of lowest-common-denominator governance, where the outcomes are largely dependent on what nation states and non-state actors are willing to pledge. This finding calls for more attention to be paid to: the potential and underlying premises of the post-Paris model; power dynamics; the prevailing ontology (top-down or bottom-up); and the role of coordination.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 27 - 46Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abbott, K. W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldy, J. E. (2014). The crucial role of policy surveillance in international climate policy. Climatic Change, 126(3–4), 279–292.Google Scholar
Aldy, J., and Pizer, W. (2016). Alternative metrics for comparing domestic climate change mitigation efforts and emerging international climate policy architecture. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Armeni, C. (2015). Global experimentalist governance, international law and climate change technologies. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(4), 875–904.Google Scholar
Betsill, M., Dubash, N. K., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., and Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. (1993). The United Nations framework convention on climate change: A commentary. Yale Journal of International Law, 18(2), 451–558.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2016). The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A new hope? American Journal of International Law, 110(2), 288–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D., and Diringer, E. (2014). Building Flexibility and Ambition into a 2015 Climate Agreement. Washington, DC: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. A. (2012). Experimentalist governance in the EU: The emperor’s new clothes? Regulation & Governance, 6(3), 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briner, G., and Moarif, S. (2016). Enhancing Transparency of Climate Change Mitigation under the Paris Agreement: Lessons from Experience. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J. (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: Testing ground for compliance theories? Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 6(2), 255–280.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Bäckstrand, K., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Duffy, R., Kolk, A., Hoffmann, M., Levy, D., Newell, P., Milledge, T., Paterson, M., Pattberg, P., and VanDeveer, S. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: Assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 591–612.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M., Newell, P., Paterson, M., Roger, C., and VanDeveer, S. (2014). Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carrington, D. (18 January 2017). 2016 hottest year ever recorded – and scientists say human activity to blame. The Guardian.Google Scholar
Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., and Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Chan, S., Brandi, C., and Bauer, S. (2016). Aligning transnational climate action with international climate governance: The road from Paris. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), 238–247.Google Scholar
Chan, S., Falkner, R., Goldberg, M., and van Asselt, H. (2018). Article title. Journal title, 18(1), 24–35. Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions. Climate Policy.Google Scholar
Chan, S., van Asselt, H., Hale, T., Abbott, K. W., Beisheim, M., Hoffmann, M., Guy, B., Höhne, N., Hsu, A., Pattberg, P., Pauw, P., Ramstein, C., and Widerberg, O. (2015). Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6(4), 466–473.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. (2015). Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5(2), 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., and Sabel, C. (2013). New modes of pluralist global governance. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 45(3), 723–786.Google Scholar
de Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., and Sabel, C. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 477–486.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. S. (2010). Inside Copenhagen: The state of climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Doelle, M. (2016). The Paris Agreement: Historic breakthrough or high stakes experiment? Climate Law, 6(1–2), 1–20.Google Scholar
Dorf, M. C., and Sabel, C. (1998). A constitution of democratic experimentalism. Columbia Law Review, 98(2), 267–473.Google Scholar
Dubash, N. K., and Rajamani, L. (2010). Beyond Copenhagen: Next steps. Climate Policy, 10(6), 593–599.Google Scholar
Ellis, J., and Moarif, S. (2015). Identifying and Addressing Gaps in the UNFCCC Reporting Framework. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Frame, D. J. (2011). The problems of markets: Science, norms and the commodification of carbon. Geographical Journal, 177(2), 138–148.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., and van Asselt, H. (forthcoming). Transparency in Multilateral Climate Negotiations: Furthering Accountability? Regulation & Governance.Google Scholar
Hale, T. (2016). All hands on deck: The Paris Agreement and non-state climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 12–21.Google Scholar
Hale, T., and Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hsu, A., Cheng, Y., Weinfurter, A., Xu, K., and Yick, C. (2016). Track climate pledges of cities and companies. Nature, 532(7599), 303–306.Google Scholar
Hsu, A., Moffat, A. S., Weinfurter, A. J., and Schwartz, J. D. (2015). Towards a new climate diplomacy. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 501–503.Google Scholar
Jaeger, C. C., and Jaeger, J. (2011). Three views of two degrees. Regional Environmental Change, 11(S1), 15–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T. J., Boasson, E. L., Forster, J., Schoenefeld, J., and Tosun, J. (2015). The emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 977–982.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. J., Schroeder, H., Adger, N., Anderson, K., Bows, A., Le Quéré, C., Joshi, M., Mander, S., Vaughan, N., and Whitmarsh, L. (2013). Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Climate Policy, 13(6), 738–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Victor, D. G. (2015). After the failure of top-down mandates: The role of experimental governance in climate change policy. In Barrett, S., Carraro, C., and de Melo, J. (eds.), Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime. London/Clermont Ferrand: CEPR Press and Ferdi, 201–212.Google Scholar
McFadgen, B., and Huitema, D. (2017). Are all experiments created equal? A framework for analysis of the learning potential of policy experiments in environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(10), 1765–1784.Google Scholar
Michaelowa, K., and Michaelowa, A. (2017). Transnational climate governance initiatives: Designed for effective climate change mitigation? International Interactions, 43(1), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncel, R., and van Asselt, H. (2012). All hands on deck! Mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 21(3), 163–176.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, M., and Petsonk, A. (2005). Article 2 of the UNFCCC: Historical origins, recent interpretations. Climatic Change, 73(3), 195–226.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.Google Scholar
Rabe, B. G. (2008). States on steroids: The intergovernmental odyssey of American climate policy. Review of Policy Research, 25(2), 105–128.Google Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2013). Differentiation in the emerging climate regime. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14(1), 151–171.Google Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–414.Google Scholar
Rayner, S. (2010). How to eat an elephant: A bottom-up approach to climate policy. Climate Policy, 10(6), 615–621.Google Scholar
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., and Meinshausen, M. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 354(7609), 631–639.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Victor, D. G. (2016). Making the Paris Process More Effective: A New Approach to Policy Coordination on Global Climate Change. Muscatine, IA: Stanley Foundation.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Victor, D. G. (2017). Governing global problems under uncertainty: Making bottom-up climate policy work. Climatic Change, 144(1), 15–27.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (eds.) (2010). Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B, Oppenheimer, M., and Rudyk, B. (2013). Building blocks for global climate protection. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 32(2), 341–392.Google Scholar
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2016). The Emissions Gap Report 2016. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2010). Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Bonn: UNFCCC.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H. (2014). The Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance: Consequences and Management of Regime Interactions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H. (2016a). International climate change law in a bottom-up world. Questions of International Law, 6, 5–15.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H. (2016b). The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the Paris Agreement. Climate Law, 6(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H., and Bößner, S. (2016). The shape of things to come: Global climate governance after Paris. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 10(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H., Sælen, H., and Pauw, P. (2015). Assessment and Review under a 2015 Climate Change Agreement. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H., Weikmans, R., Roberts, T., and Abeysinghe, A. (2016). Transparency of Action and Support under the Paris Agreement. Oxford: European Capacity-Building Initiative.Google Scholar
van der Ven, H., Bernstein, S., and Hoffmann, M. (2017). Valuing the contributions of nonstate and subnational actors to climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yale Data-Driven Environmental Solutions Group (2016). Taking Stock of Global Climate Action. http://datadriven.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Data_Driven_Yale_Taking-Stock-of-Global-Climate-Action_Nov_2016_final.pdf [accessed 4 October 2017].Google Scholar
Zahar, A. (2015). International Climate Change Law and State Compliance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by