Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 137–155 | Cite as

Connect the dots: managing the fragmentation of global climate governance

Research Article Governance on Low Carbon Technology Transfer

Abstract

The debate about post-2012 global climate governance has been framed largely by proponents and opponents of the policymaking process established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In light of the proliferation of institutions governing some aspects of climate change, analysts have asked whether a centralized or a polycentric climate governance architecture will be more effective, efficient, equitable, or viable. While these are valid questions, they obscure the fact that global climate governance is already polycentric, or rather: fragmented. This article argues that the more pertinent questions are how to sensibly link the different elements of global climate governance, and what the role of the UNFCCC could be in this regard. We examine these two questions for three aspects of global climate governance: international climate technology initiatives, emerging emissions trading systems, and unilateral trade measures. The article shows that there are strong arguments for coordination in all of these cases, and illustrates the possible role of the UNFCCC. It concludes, however, that possibilities for coordination will eventually be limited by underlying tensions that will plague any future climate governance architecture.

Keywords

Clean technologies Climate governance Emissions trading Institutional complexity Trade measures 

References

  1. Abbott K (2012) The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30(4):571–590Google Scholar
  2. Abbott KW, Snidal D (2010) International regulation without international government: improving IO performance through orchestration. Rev Int Organ 5(3):315–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) (2007) Architectures for agreement: addressing global climate change in a post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) (2010) Post-Kyoto international climate policy: implementing architectures for agreement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2009) Transnational climate governance. Global Environ Politics 9(2):52–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein S, Betsill M, Hoffmann M, Paterson M (2010) A tale of two Copenhagens: carbon markets and climate governance. Millenn J Int Stud 39(1):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q 48(2):471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann F (2010) Beyond the intergovernmental regime: recent trends in global carbon governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(4):284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Global Environ Politics 9(4):14–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodansky DM (1993) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: a commentary. Yale J Int Law 18:451–558Google Scholar
  11. Bulkeley H (2010) Cities and the governing of climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulkeley H, Newell P (2010) Governing climate change. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Ceres (2011) Climate risk disclosure by insurers: evaluating insurer responses to the NAIC climate disclosure survey. Ceres, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Climate Strategies (2008) International cooperation to limit the use of border adjustment. In: Workshop summary, South Center, Geneva, September 10, 2008. Climate Strategies, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. de Coninck H, Fischer C, Newell RG, Ueno T (2008) International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy 36(1):335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Depledge J, Yamin F (2009) The global climate-change regime: a defence. In: Helm D, Hepburn C (eds) The economics and politics of climate change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433–453Google Scholar
  17. Eckersley R (2012) Moving forward in the climate negotiations: multilateralism or minilateralism? Global Environ Politics 12(2):24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falkner R, Stephan H, Vogler J (2010) International climate policy after Copenhagen: towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Global Policy 1(3):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flachsland C, Marschinski R, Edenhofer O (2009a) Global trading versus linking: architectures of international emissions trading. Energy Policy 37(5):1637–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flachsland C, Marschinski R, Edenhofer O (2009b) To link or not to link: benefits and disadvantages of linking cap-and-trade systems. Clim Policy 9(4):358–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta J, Grubb M (2000) Climate change and European leadership. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hare W, Stockwell C, Flachsland C, Oberthür S (2010) The architecture of the global climate regime: a top-down perspective. Clim Policy 10(6):600–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hof AF, Den Elzen MGJ, Van Vuuren DP (2009) Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies? Int Environ Agreem Politics Law Econ 9(1):39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffmann MJ (2011) Climate governance at the crossroads: experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hood C (2010) Reviewing existing and proposed emissions trading systems. International Energy Agency, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jagers S, Stripple J (2003) Climate governance beyond the state. Global Gov 9(3):385–399Google Scholar
  27. Jordan A, Rayner T (2010) The evolution of climate policy in the European Union: an historical overview. In: Jordan A, Huitema D, van Asselt H, Rayner T, Berkhout F (eds) Climate change policy in the European Union: confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordan A, van Asselt H, Berkhout F, Huitema D, Rayner T (2012) Climate change policy in the European Union: understanding the paradoxes of multi-level governing. Global Environ Politics 12(2):43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, van Asselt H (2009) Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate. Int Environ Agreem Politics Law Econ 9(3):195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keohane RO (1989) International institutions and state power. Essays in international relations theory. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  31. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Politics 9(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kossoy A, Ambrosi P (2010) State and trends of the carbon market 2010. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovell H (2010) Governing the carbon offset market. WIREs Clim Change 1:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGee JS (2011) Exclusive minilateralism: an emerging discourse within international climate change governance? Portal J Multidiscip Int Stud 8(3):1–29Google Scholar
  35. McGee J, Taplin R (2009) The role of the Asia-Pacific partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime. Int Environ Agreem Politics Law Econ 9(3):213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naím M (2009). Minilateralism. The magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy, July/August, 5–8, 2009Google Scholar
  37. Oberthür S, Stokke OS (eds) (2011) Managing institutional complexity. Regime interplay and global environmental change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Okereke C, Bulkeley H, Schroeder H (2009) Conceptualizing climate change governance beyond the international regime. Global Environ Politics 9(1):56–76Google Scholar
  39. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environ Change 20(4):550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305(5686):968–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pattberg P, Stripple J (2008) Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. Int Environ Agreem Politics Law Econ 8(4):367–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pauwelyn J (2007) US federal climate policy and competitiveness concern: the limits and options of international trade law. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  43. Phelan L, Taplin R, Ann-Henderson-Sellers, Albrecht G (2011) Ecological viability or liability? Insurance system responses to climate risk. Environ Policy Gov 21(2):112–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prins G, Rayner S (2007) Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449:973–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rayner S (2010) How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy. Clim Policy 10(6):615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogelj J, Nabel J, Chen C, Hare W, Markmann K, Meinshausen M, Schaeffer M, Macey K, Höhne N (2010) Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464:1126–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Selin H, VanDeveer SD (2009) Changing climate in North American politics: institutions, policymaking and multilevel governance. The MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skjærseth JB, Wettestad J (2008) EU emissions trading: initiation, decision-making and implementation. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  49. Tamura K (2006) Technology development and transfer. In: Srinivasan A (ed) Asian aspirations for climate regime beyond 2012. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, pp 53–76Google Scholar
  50. Tawney L, Weischer L (2011) Innovation and technology transfer: supporting low carbon development with climate finance. WRI Working Paper. WRI, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Tuerk A, Mehling M, Flachsland C, Sterk W (2009) Linking carbon markets: concepts. Case studies and pathways. Clim Policy 9(4):341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2010) The Emissions Gap Report. Are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2° C or 1.5° C? A preliminary assessment. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2011) Bridging the emissions gap. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  54. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), and WTO (World Trade Organization) (2009) Trade and Climate Change. A report by the united nations environment programme and the world trade organization. UNEP/WTO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  55. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2010) Report on options to facilitate collaborative technology research and development. Note by the Chair of the Expert Group on Technology Transfer. UN Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2010/INF.11 (24 November 2010)Google Scholar
  56. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2011) 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. UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 (15 March 2011)Google Scholar
  57. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2012) Decision 1/CP.17, establishment of an ad hoc working group on the durban platform for enhanced action. UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 (15 March 2012)Google Scholar
  58. van Asselt H (2007) From UN-ity to Diversity? The UNFCCC, the Asia-Pacific Partnership, and the Future of International Law on Climate Change. Carbon Clim Law Rev 1(1):17–28Google Scholar
  59. van Asselt H (2012) Managing the fragmentation of international environmental law: forests at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 44(4):1205–1278Google Scholar
  60. van Asselt H, Brewer T (2010) Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy 38(1):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Asselt H, Gupta J (2009) Stretching too far: developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanf Environ Law J 28(2):311–378Google Scholar
  62. Velders GJM, Andersen SO, Daniel JS, Fahey DW, McFarland M (2007) The importance of the montreal protocol in protecting climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(12):4814–4819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Victor DG (2011) Global warming gridlock: creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Victor DG, House JC, Joy S (2005) A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309(5742):1820–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wara MW, Victor DG (2008) A realistic policy on international carbon offsets. PESD Working Paper 74. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  66. World Bank (2008) Development and climate change: a strategic framework for the World Bank Group. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  67. Yamin F, Depledge J (2004) The international climate change regime: a guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zelli F (2011) The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. WIREs Clim Change 2(2):255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zelli F, van Asselt H (2010) The overlap between the UN climate regime and the world trade organization: lessons for post-2012 climate governance. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F (eds) Global climate governance beyond 2012: architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79–96Google Scholar
  70. Zhang ZX (2009) Encouraging developing country involvement in a post-2012 climate change regime: carrots, sticks or both? In: Simmons B, van Asselt H, Zelli F (eds) Climate and trade policies in a post-2012 world. United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, pp 79–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden
  2. 2.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations