The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles (original) (raw)
Related papers
Marmara University Journal of Political Science, 2020
Global climate governance is one of the most complex global governance systems that is also ridden with divergent interests of states and non-state actors. Since the 2000s, the authority of UN-led global climate governance has been contested by the states declining their mitigation targets of the Kyoto Protocol and by those that find the international climate negotiations inefficient to ramp up climate action. These divergent views of states resulted in the counter-institutionalization apparent in the proliferation of minilateral forums and hybrid coalitions of climate initiatives oftentimes bringing states and non-state actors together. These non-UNFCCC partnerships have functioned to be strategic actions that put pressure on the global climate governance system to re-legitimate itself. Meanwhile, transnational actors have also contested the same system demanding a deeper cooperation that will keep the temperature goal below 2 degrees. This study argues that with its new mode of governance named hybrid multilateralism, the Paris Agreement was actually an institutional adaptation to the contestations by states and non-state actors in the forms of counter-institutionalization and politicization. It also discusses the problematic sides of the functions that non-state actors are expected to provide in this new governance mode. This paper is composed of four parts: firstly, the theoretical background that feeds into the analysis of empirical data with regard to global climate governance will be presented. Secondly, beginning from the Rio Conference, milestone developments in global climate governance will be examined by taking the contestation by the states into consideration. In the third part, the process of the politicization of climate change in which transnational actors and specifically the climate change movement demanded more decisive climate action will be explicated. In the last part, the existing legitimacy deficits with regard to non-state actors in post-Paris climate governance will be elaborated.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
In this advanced review, we outline the multifaceted roles played by non-state actors within the UNFCCC and place this within the wider landscape of global climate governance. In doing so, we look at both the formation and aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We argue that the Paris Agreement cements an architecture of hybrid multilateralism that enables and constrains non-state actor participation in global climate governance. We flesh out the constitutive features of hybrid multilateralism, enumerate the multiple positions non-state actors may employ under these conditions, and contend that non-state actors will play an increasingly important role in the post-Paris era. To substantiate these claims, we assess these shifts and ask how non-state actors may affect the legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness of the Paris Agreement.
2013
The role civil-society organizations and other non-state actors play in global governance has received growing attention in recent years (to name just a few: Betsill/Corell 2008; Keck/Sikkink 1998; Steffek/Kissling/Nanz 2007; Tallberg/Jönsson 2010). Studies typically focus on their activities on the grassroots level, their participation in international conferences as registered observers and on the venues for NGO participation and consultation provided by different international organizations. What has rarely been studied so far in greater detail, however, is another form of opening up global governance to non-state actors.2 In many policy fields, when sending national delegations to bargain at an international conference, more and more states have opened up their delegation to one or several NGO members, to representatives of the business community or to external academic experts. Yet, we do know very little about this inclusion of non-state actors in state delegations at international conferences. Under which circumstances do states admit non-state actors, which kind of states embrace this legitimation strategy, which types of non-state actors do get access? Furthermore, what are the effects of non-state actor inclusion: does participation as part of a national delegation provide new forms of influence to non-state actors, or is this mostly a state strategy of disciplining and taming an otherwise inconvenient civil society? This paper will make a first step in addressing these issues. It takes the Conferences of the Parties within the framework of the global climate change politics regime as a pilot study to analyze the determinants of non-state actor admission to state delegations. While climate change politics is a most-likely case for non-state actor participation and thus not representative of all policy fields, it is an ideal candidate for a pilot study, as we have abundant publicly available data and a broad variety of both actors and motivations to grant and deny their access to the state delegations. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, I will briefly describe the phenomenon of non-state actor inclusion in state delegations and formulate the research question more precisely. Pursuing this question will require to reflect on factors that might possibly explain why or under which conditions states may be ready to open up their delegation to representatives from civil society. The third section will then introduce fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, the method used in this paper, whereas section four will present the research design of the analysis. Results of the analysis obtained so far will be discussed subsequently, leading to some preliminary conclusions at the end.
Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and sustainability governance
WIREs Climate Change, 2019
Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement stand as milestone diplomatic achievements. However, immense discrepancies between political commitments and governmental action remain. Combined national climate commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5/2C targets. Similar political ambition gaps persist across various areas of sustainable development. Many therefore argue that actions by nonstate actors, such as businesses and investors, cities and regions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are crucial. These voices have resonated across the United Nations (UN) system, leading to growing recognition, promotion, and mobilization of such actions in ever greater numbers. This article investigates optimistic arguments about nonstate engagement, namely: (a) “the more the better”; (b) “everybody wins”; (c) “everyone does their part”; and (d) “more brings more.” However, these optimistic arguments may not be matched in practice due to governance risks. The current emphasis on quantifiable impacts may lead to the under-appreciation of variegated social, economic, and environmental impacts. Claims that everybody stands to benefit may easily be contradicted by outcomes that are not in line with priorities and needs in developing countries. Despite the seeming depoliticization of the role of nonstate actors in implementation, actions may still lead to politically contentious outcomes. Finally, nonstate climate and sustainability actions may not be self-reinforcing but may heavily depend on supporting mechanisms. The article concludes with governance risk-reduction strategies that can be combined to maximize nonstate potential in sustainable and climate-resilient transformations.
Transnational delegation in global environmental governance: When do non-state actors govern
Non-state actors – including firms, non-governmental organizations, and networks – are now a permanent fixture in environmental politics. However, we know surprisingly little about when states choose to delegate to non-state actors through multilateral treaties. This paper provides an historical picture, tracing patterns of delegation to non-state agents in a random sample of multilateral environmental agreements from 1902 to 2002. I introduce a new unit of analysis – the policy function – to understand what non-state actors actually do as agents. I find that analyses of delegation are sensitive to the unit of analysis; patterns of delegation at the treaty level are very different from those at the level of individual policy functions. While overall the decision to delegate to non-state actors – what I term transnational delegation – is rare, it has grown over time. Complex treaties, those with secretariats, and those focused on the management of nature are more apt to delegate to non-state actors. Non-state agents fill a small, but growing role in multilateral environmental treaties.
With this paper we present an analysis of sixty transnational governance initiatives and assess the implications for our understanding of the roles of public and private actors, the legitimacy of governance 'beyond' the state, and the North-South dimensions of governing climate change. In the fi rst part of the paper we examine the notion of transnational governance and its applicability in the climate change arena, refl ecting on the history and emergence of transnational governance initiatives in this issue area and key areas of debate. In the second part of the paper we present the fi ndings from the database and its analysis. Focusing on three core issues, the roles of public and private actors in governing transnationally, the functions that such initiatives perform, and the ways in which accountability for governing global environmental issues might be achieved, we suggest that signifi cant distinctions are emerging in the universe of transnational climate governance which may have considerable implications for the governing of global environmental issues. In conclusion, we refl ect on these fi ndings and the subsequent consequences for the governance of climate change.
State and Sovereignty Issues in International Climate Agreements: The Role of Non- State Actors
Climate change is a Global issue and presents a great threat to the very existence of states. To adequately deal with the issues of climate change, nations need to gradually abandon sovereignty as planetary limits start to operate as global commons and significantly increase the need for joined-up and cooperative solutions. The international system characterized by a conservative hegemony is unable to provide solutions to problems rooted in the profound interdependency of current societies which to be addressed require, more than ever, a cooperative approach. Non-state actors can serve as a third force in bridging this gap. In this paper, through a thorough analysis of literature, we discuss state and sovereignty issues in International Climate Agreements and demonstrate how the introduction of Non-State Actors have facilitated or impeded progress in both negotiations and implementation. The role of Non-State Actors in Ghana’s Climate Actions is also critically discussed. Non-state actors played several roles in international climate agreements from the setting of agenda, their participation in negotiations in the form of lobbying and giving expert advice, and finally the monitoring and enforcement role. At the national level, non-state actors were actively engaged in awareness creation, capacity building, and policy advocacy. Non-state actors have largely facilitated progress and we emphasize the need for non-state actors to address some of the structural challenges in the internal workings of its organizations and strengthen its capacity to better influence decisions in the future.
Policy Sciences, 2000
An important current of research in international environmental affairsdeals with the roles of non-state actors in international environmentalgovernance. For many, the growing influence of non-state actors is a welcometrend because these actors, especially non-governmental organizations,facilitate environmental negotiations between states and perform keyinformation-gathering, dissemination, advocacy, and appraisal functions thatstates are either unwilling or unable to do. For the student of internationalrelations (IR), examining the roles and responsibilities of non-state actorsin global environmental affairs is a departure from the ordinary concern ofthat field – namely, the study of interstate behavior. But for the studyof global environmental problems, particularly those problems that aresimultaneously global and local, the investigator must map the influence ofan even broader assemblage of actors. Little is known about how local levelinstitutions or ordinary citizens fit into global environmental policyprocesses. Understanding what motivates public demands for globalenvironmental quality is an especially important research task, especially forthose pervasive environmental problems like global climate change and complexexhortations like sustainable development that require the attention andacquiescence of ordinary citizens.
Varieties of climate governance: the emergence and functioning of climate institutions
Environmental Politics, 2021
How do states respond to the challenge of climate governance? The Paris Agreement has led to heightened interest in domestic climate policies, but attention to underlying national climate institutional architectures has lagged behind. This literature gap deserves to be addressed, because climate change brings considerable governance challenges. Drawing on a collection of country studies, this paper outlines a framework to explain the path-dependent emergence of climate institutions, based on the interplay of national political institutions, international drivers, and bureaucratic structures. The resultant institutional forms suggest four varieties of climate governance, based on the extent of political polarisation and the narrative around climate politics in the country. The functioning of existing climate institutions indicates they have so far played a modest role in addressing climate governance challenges, but also illustrates their importance in structuring climate politics and outcomes, suggesting a substantial agenda for future research.