Reinforcement of multilevel governance dynamics: creating momentum for increasing ambitions in international climate negotiations

Compared to the disappointment of the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, the results of the recent Conferences of the Parties can be regarded as positive progress. This was made possible due to lesson drawing and learning among states. Recent evidence from the UNFCCC negotiations suggests that countries began to reflect on the “Copenhagen experience.” They are setting up domestic climate legislation in the form of low carbon development plans and share their knowledge and experiences in the international climate change negotiations. Country representatives engage in workshops and roundtables to showcase their mitigation plans and low carbon development initiatives, thereby raising ambitions and creating group pressure on other countries. This article examines how the diffusion of policies across countries is motivated and facilitated by knowledge transfer and learning within multilevel-reinforcing governance dynamics between the domestic level and international negotiations. It analyzes how changes in the negotiation setting from confrontational formal negotiations to a more open forum and bottom-up pledge-and-review process, in combination with a positively framed win–win low carbon economic development narrative resulted in the diffusion of climate policies across developed and developing countries. Communicating these climate initiatives on the national level has shifted the debate. Countries emphasize less the win–lose perspective of economic costs and sacrifice. Thus, they focus less on the question of who should reduce emissions’, but identify co-benefits instead. The institutionalized knowledge sharing within the UNFCCC is also creating positive competitive dynamics among countries to increase their ambition and to take on a leadership role. This shift in the negotiations carries potential for a more ambitious aggregate negotiation outcome and opens up a window of opportunity.     

FROM COPENHAGEN TO DURBAN: ON INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference began with high expectation but ended in despair. It reached the so-called Copenhagen Accord with some dissenters. The Copenhagen Accord calls for deep cuts in global emissions, but it has not reached a binding goal of greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment and is not a legal effective agreement. EU played a limited role in Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, while the US and China were crucial to achieve the Copenhagen Accord. The subsequent Cancun negotiation reached the Cancun Agreements, but many substantial issues remained unsolved, such as the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and other core issues. Durban Climate Summit successfully managed to include the main polluters of the globe, especially the US and the main emerging economies (including India and China), to commit their obligations for the first time to reduce greenhouse gas emission reduction under the international framework, and all the parties of the conference agreed that they would negotiate new mechanisms of greenhouse gas reduction which will be implemented by 2020 before 2015. Durban Climate Summit has also reached a package of agreements on climate change. Among them, an important one is about the Global Climate Fund. But some key issues including quantified GHGs emission reduction goals among countries have not been solved.     

Making initiatives resonate: how can non-state initiatives advance national contributions under the UNFCCC?

The international governance landscape on climate change mitigation is increasingly complex across multiple governance levels. Climate change mitigation initiatives by non-state stakeholders can play an important role in governing global climate change. The article addresses the relationship between intergovernmental and transnational governance processes in global climate governance. Particularly, the article aims to complement existing research on the role of “orchestration” by and through the UNFCCC process by focusing on how successful transnational initiatives can resonate within the intergovernmental negotiation process in order to inspire more ambitious climate action also on the part of national governments. This issue is addressed by systematically analysing interdependencies between transnational and international governance. Building on a structurational regime model, the article develops a theory of change of how and through which structuration channels non-state initiatives can contribute to changing the politics of international climate policy, traces existing UNFCCC processes and the Paris Agreement with a view to identifying inroads for a more direct feedback from non-state initiatives and derives recommendations on how and under which agenda items positive experiences can resonate within the UNFCCC negotiation process.     

Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process

While adaptation has, in the last 3 years, become the most fashionable item on the climate policy agenda, this was not always so. Since the early 1990s, numerous scientists and policy makers have been making the case that adaptation has been the overlooked cousin of greenhouse gas mitigation. As both are seen to be of equal importance, the lack of policy on adaptation is interpreted as a political strategy by developed countries to avoid admitting liability and the financial consequences of this admission. A tension between those in favour of mitigation over adaptation activities has strongly characterized the discourse on climate change policy. However, a closer look at the history of the concept of adaptation as applied in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process underscores the original intention that the treaty should focus on reducing the source of climate change, rather than on adapting to the changes. Adaptive capacity was considered to be an indicator of the extent to which societies could tolerate changes in climate, and was not seen as a policy objective. As a result of events that have unrolled since the inception of the UNFCCC, needs and perceptions have shifted. Today, there are strong grounds for having adaptation as a policy goal, but it must be recognized that the UNFCCC, and its Kyoto Protocol in particular, are first and foremost about abating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, adaptation policy may find a more appropriate home beyond the existing climate change regime.     

The European Union as a global climate leader: confronting aspiration with evidence

In rhetoric and action the European Union has attempted to be a global leader in forging solutions to confront the problem of climate change. Using unique survey data collected at five consecutive UN climate summits from 2008–2012, this article provides evidence on the extent to which the EU is actually recognized as a leader in the UNFCCC climate negotiations, investigates how perceptions of EU leadership have evolved overtime, and helps make sense of the role that the EU has played in recent negotiation outcomes. The survey’s findings show that recognition of the EU as a leader dropped sharply in 2009 at the COP 15 summit in Copenhagen, but has climbed again in subsequent years. The results reveal a fragmented leadership landscape in which the EU must share or compete for leadership with other actors, such as the USA and China, who hold drastically different institutional design preferences and leadership visions than those promoted by the EU. The article’s findings provide insight into the dynamics that both foster and frustrate the EU’s aspiration to lead the effort to reach a deal on a binding post-2020 climate change agreement in Paris at COP 21.     

Environmental Technology Transfer and Dissemination under the UNFCCC: Achievements and New Perspectives

Response to climate change will critically depend on the cost, performance, and availability of technologies that can lower emissions, mitigate, and adapt to climate change. Technological innovation can furthermore lower the cost of achieving environmental objectives. However, and although issues of technology transfer have been central to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since the negotiation of the convention, there is still an urgent need for effective environmental technology diffusion. Building upon lessons learned from technology transfer activities under the Clean Development Mechanism and the Global Environment Facility, the article suggests three possible solutions for enhanced environmental technology diffusion within the UNFCCC regime. First, it advocates in favor of a simplification of the transfer scheme within the convention's bodies, in order to save resources and better allocate responsibilities. Second, it makes some recommendations with respect to technology transfer through the Green Climate Fund. Third, it suggests that the creation of an environmental patents’ pool would help to ensure access to key environmental technologies. To this respect, the article concludes that in order to ensure the full participation of the private sector, right holders should be paid a fair royalty. Therefore, a model where rights would be bought out and then made available to parties through a patent pool is recommended.     

Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is struggling in its attempts to address the threat of anthropogenic climate change and create an effective international climate agreement. A substantial part of the problem is consensus decision-making within the Convention. Majority voting is a potential alternative which is already being discussed within the UNFCCC. A comparative analysis of consensus and majority voting suggests that majority voting is superior in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness by allowing for quicker decision-making and semi-global approaches to a climate agreement (termed here as “Critical Mass Governance”). This paper aims to investigate how majority voting could be implemented in the UNFCCC and to consider politically feasible and effective approaches to voting arrangements for the Convention. There is a legal opportunity to introduce voting through adoption of the draft Rules of Procedure, but this faces political opposition. A type of Layered Majority Voting with larger majorities for financial and substantial matters is considered to be the optimal approach in balancing political feasibility and effectiveness. For now, voting is not politically feasible for the UNFCCC, but could be introduced into future bodies or treaties under the Convention.     

Converging Markets

The crucible in this scenario for the international climate regime is the emergence of an effective and liquid international carbon market with participation of private entities. In order to make the carbon market effective a bilateral negotiation track will develop, operating in parallel with the multilateral track under the UNFCCC. The purpose of the bilateral track is to integrate the various emissions trading schemes involving private actors. This bilateral track feeds into the UNFCCC negotiations, which still represents the main arena for the international climate negotiations. Through the bilateral, bottom-up negotiations, a multistage system develops, with differentiated rights and duties, complemented by a package of coordinated support mechanisms. The advantages of such a bottom-up approach prove to be, inter alia, fewer negotiating parties, new negotiation arenas, and a new set of selective incentives. The result is a continuously evolving agreement with the potential to gradually broaden participation and deepen the reduction commitments of the international climate regime. Moreover, the bilateral agreements for linking schemes with private actors also represent a fallback in the event of a collapse in the multilateral negotiations.The article has been written by funding from the Central Research Institute for the Electric Power Industry in Tokyo and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It also represents an output of research financed by the Research Council of Norway, project no. 144768/520. The authors thank all three institutions for the funding, as well as the many participants at the workshops where the ideas in the paper have been presented. Their criticism and suggestions have been very stimulating, indeed.     

Seizing the opportunity: tackling fossil fuel subsidies under the UNFCCC

Analyses from international and nongovernmental organizations have pointed to the negative environmental, economic and social implications of the sizable subsidies handed out by governments for the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Given their relevance for achieving climate policy objectives, it is perhaps surprising that the climate regime established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not address fossil fuel subsidies. This article discusses the possible role of the UNFCCC in tackling fossil fuel subsidies. It suggests that the UNFCCC could enhance the transparency around fossil fuel subsidies and put in place incentives for countries to undertake subsidy reform. However, the possibilites under the UNFCCC will be limited by political barriers to subsidy reform at the national level and will need to be carried out in coordination with other international institutions active in the field.     

Crafting the Copenhagen Consensus: Some Reflections

The 2007 Bali Climate Conference launched a 'meta-negotiation' of unprecedented scale and complexity. Culminating in 2009, climate change delegates must now define the next round of targets for the Kyoto Protocol developed country parties, and comparable provisions for the USA. Most dauntingly, negotiators must also devise a new architecture for further 'action' by developing countries under the Convention. This paper reflects on the key challenges involved in crafting a consensus at the climate conference in 2009 in Copenhagen. In particular, it explores options for reaching agreement with the USA and developing countries, suggesting a transition phase up to 2020. For developing countries, the paper outlines a possible 'choose and no-lose' approach, along with options for increased financing. The paper concludes by looking beyond 2009, emphasizing that, given the complexity of the negotiations, a work programme post-Copenhagen will be needed.     

Postface: fragmentation,failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance

The Paris Agreement commits nations in Article 2(1) to “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” However there is an absence of internationally agreed accounting rules that would permit overall assessments of progress to this goal and any meaningful comparisons of performance between countries. This is true also for the quantitative Copenhagen/Cancún promise by developed nations to jointly mobilize US$100 billion by 2020. Our goal is to provoke discussion about the depth of the problems this lack of a functional definition and accounting system have created and perpetuated. We do so by describing the fragmented system of national reporting of climate finance and how the OECD’s Rio Marker system is serving neither contributors nor recipients. More than a trust issue between developed and developing countries, we argue that the lack of modalities to account for climate finance also considerably impedes the effective functioning of the bottom-up approach that now prevails under the UNFCCC. The deadline to propose "modalities of accounting climate finance" by 2018 is a crucial window in which to address this chronic issue in international climate policy.     

The power of presidency in UN climate change negotiations: comparison between Denmark and Mexico

In December 2010, the 16th Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ended with adopting Cancun Agreements as official decisions under the UN process. The international community determined the meeting a success. This was a substantial change compared to the previous year’s Copenhagen climate conference, which failed to reach consensus at the official level and thus having come under severe criticism as “diplomatic failure.” This article aims to explain the stark contrast between the two consecutive COP meetings and argues that the leadership style of the president of the conference is one important factor propelling negotiations forward. While the current literature scarcely addresses the role of the president, this article explores multiple variables that condition the president’s effectiveness in moving negotiations forward. This article concludes that the Mexican government successfully chaired the negotiations with excellent agenda management and process management capability, which the Danish government lacked. In particular, its transparent and embracing manner in handling subgroup meetings and the production of a single negotiation text facilitated trust among negotiators, which in turn made the parties tend to cooperate better. More importantly, the case study reveals that the Mexican government had a significant influence on given conditions of the negotiation process, such as the international environment surrounding the negotiation and the decision-making rules.     

Let's Talk about Climate Change: Disclosure Is Coming

In this article, I review the newly released draft ASTM International standard on climate change disclosure. Many parties, from investors to state agencies, are calling for a consistent, comprehensive approach to disclosure of material financial impacts attributed to climate change. Disclosures range from costs associated with compliance to new laws to more general risk management strategies adopted by corporations. This article summarizes some of the key features of the draft standard and encourages participation in the development process.     

Fostering a triple response mechanism to combat global climate change: Emission abatement,carbon capture and water improvement

The Kyoto Protocol has established emission abatement and carbon sink increase to cope with climate change. However, in recent years, developed countries tend to focus more on the former. The simplifying of GHG causes has posed challenges for the understanding of climate change issues and for the development of consequent counter-measures, leading to present controversy and dilemma over mechanisms to combat global climate change. It is held that a desirable global cooperative stance should be “harmonious but differentiated,” i.e., the division of responsibilities and co-operation among the countries should be conducted after the diversities of different countries are recognized in terms of climate change, interests and functions. To meet this end, it is necessary to have UNFCCC play a leading role, under which emission abatement, carbon sink and water cycle improvement are concurrently reinforced. Under this triple mechanism, industrialized countries ought to continue to take the lead in emission abatement, while developing countries, especially those with great potentialities to strengthen carbon sink and water conservancy, ought to conduct ecological preservation and to develop hydraulic capacity so as to strengthen the natural carbon cycle and water cycle to combat climatic impacts.     

The European Union as a negotiator in the international climate change regime

While the leadership role of the European Union (EU) in the climate change regime has been largely acknowledged, less attention has been paid to identifying the reasons why the EU often fails in climate change negotiations. Such an undertaking is deemed imperative following the negative for the EU turn of events at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. There is sufficient literature to be found on the link between the Union’s unique and complex organizational structure and its inability to act cohesively and purposefully. This study seeks to add to this corpus by looking at the extent to which the EU has been able to learn from its mistakes and incorporate timely remedial action. Even though important, the EU’s failures as a global actor cannot be explained by only looking at its ineffective institutional architecture. A more systematic understanding of the reasons behind EU’s failures in climate talks is in fact needed. By using Underdal’s theory of ‘negotiation failure’, this study tries to explore the extent to which negotiation theory could help with better comprehending the obstacles that prevented the Union from getting more out of the climate negotiation process.     

Small island developing states and international climate change negotiations: the power of moral “leadership”

Being at the frontline of climate change, small island developing states (SIDS) hold a serious stake in climate negotiations. However, these countries usually are marginalized in the international political arena, due to their lack of structural power. This paper explores the strategic influence of SIDS and its representative organization, the Alliance of Small Island States, in the negotiations leading to the Copenhagen summit of December 2009. Using the concepts of leadership and discourses, the position, strategies, and impact of SIDS are analyzed on negotiation processes and their final outcome, focusing on three core demands of small island countries at Copenhagen: a temperature rise limit of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels, funding for adaptation, and a legally binding outcome. Results reveal that SIDS practiced entrepreneurial, intellectual, and environmental leadership strategies and especially made use of moral claims in the debate. Given their near absence of structural power, they managed to secure a surprisingly large part of “their” agenda and interests in the final Copenhagen Accord, especially through (discourse) coalitions with various other state and non-state stakeholders.     

Climate justice and bargaining coalitions: a discourse analysis

This article adopts a perspective of climate justice as an object of discourse and takes the bargaining coalitions at the Conference of the Parties as the relevant units to map the heterogeneous discourse on climate justice at the Cancun COP16. Based on the statements of nine coalitions, the analysis identifies three discourses on climate justice. The conflict discourse articulates the North–South duality over issues of historical responsibility for climate change. The transition discourse points to solving the problem of sharing the cost of mitigating climate change through a process of global low-carbon growth. The vulnerability discourse focuses on the urgency of ambitious actions by all parties. These three discourses, and their appropriation by the bargaining coalitions, are inherent of new alignments among developed and developing countries alliances and blocs that simultaneously reproduce and surpass the North–South ideological divide.     

The 2 °C target: a European norm enters the international stage—following the process to adoption in China

“The 2 °C target—a European norm enters the international stage” is an empirical, qualitative study, using the case of China to illustrate the role played by the EU as a leader and forerunner pushing for a 2 °C target using diffusion mechanisms of persuasion and socialization. In order to better understand and evaluate how international and European climate norms enter the global and domestic discourse, the article details the nascent theoretical debate and critically assesses the role of the scientific community as translating medium. In the field of climate change China has been an increasingly important member of the UNFCCC process and a key target of European engagement policies. Process tracing shows that British scientific and political personalities took central roles introducing the discourse about the 2 °C target in China. The article aims to set an example of possible trajectories a norm can follow and will require further testing in the future.     

Natural Resource Damages for Climate Change—An Idea Whose Time Is Not Yet Come,Part I: NRD Claims Are Not Currently Viable under CERCLA

As the effects of climate change are felt, affected parties will seek redress in the legal system. Numerous suits have already been filed and this may only be the beginning of a trend. One type of suit that has not yet been filed is the natural resource damage (NRD) claim under CERCLA. While it is unlikely that climate change-based NRD claims could succeed under current law, it may only be a matter of time before they are brought. With the present legal landscape in mind, this article examines statutory requirements under CERCLA to bring a climate change related NRD claim.     

A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement

In the context of the UNFCCC negotiation process on a global climate agreement, policy makers are looking for approaches on how to significantly raise the mitigation ambition of all relevant sectors, including the land use sector. Aside of the formal negotiations some Parties to the UNFCCC have started an informal dialogue and discuss how to merge the fragmented accounting rules for mitigation relevant land use activities, in particular those concerning forest-sector emissions. Stressing that ‘history matters’, we use a historical institutionalist perspective to assess the institutional pathways of the different accounting rules for developed and developing countries, their mutual relationship, and in how far they are supportive or counterproductive for this endeavour. Our empirical analysis shows that Parties tend to use any modification phase in the negotiation process to water down already achieved agreements, and that negotiating modalities after targets have been agreed is not conducive either. In the efforts of specifying the Paris agreement, merging existing rules into a common accounting framework is likely to further compromise the exisiting weak rules and modalities, and potentially what negotiators consider as ‘environmental integrity’. With this, a formal negotiation of common rules for the accounting of the land use sector may yield an outcome below what has been achieved since the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement started in 2005. We conclude that politically acceptable approaches for the land use sector that also contribute to the overall objective of raising ambition should avoid reopening already agreed decisions on rules and modalities.