Top Banner
From Regulator to Facilitator? The Evolving Role of the UNFCCC in Global Climate Governance Dr Harro van Asselt Stockholm Environment Institute [email protected] Dr Fariborz Zelli Lund University [email protected] Our Common Future under Climate Change Conference Paris, 9 July 2015
13

Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Apr 14, 2017

Download

Science

Ingrid LE RU
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

From Regulator to Facilitator?

The Evolving Role of the UNFCCC in Global Climate Governance

Dr Harro van Asselt

Stockholm Environment Institute

[email protected]

Dr Fariborz Zelli

Lund University

[email protected]

Our Common Future under Climate Change Conference

Paris, 9 July 2015

Page 2: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Adapted from: Keohane & Victor 2011

Expert

assessments

International

economic agreements

Multilateral

envtl agreements

International

financial institutions

Montreal Protocol

Subnational

climate change action

Bilateral

initiatives

Climate clubs

Institutional fragmentation and climate change

Page 3: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Implications of institutional fragmentation

3

Opportunities

• Accommodating states’ interests

• Increased flexibility

• Experimentation and diffusion of best practices

• Inclusion of wider set of actors

Risks

• Regulatory uncertainty and norm conflicts

• Forum-shopping by powerful actors

• Legitimacy gaps/exclusion of some actors

=> What is the added value of the UNFCCC?

Page 4: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Beyond regulation: The ‘forgotten’ roles of the UNFCCC

4

• Agenda-setting

• Keeping momentum

• Linking mitigation to ‘orphan issues’ (adaptation, technology)

• Facilitating learning

• Orchestrating action by other institutions

Page 5: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Orchestration in theory (1)

Orchestrator

Intermediary

Governance goal

Source: Abbott et al. 2015

Orchestration is:

• A strategy for managing institutional complexity

• Indirect

• Not hierarchical

Page 6: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Orchestration in theory (2)

UNFCCC (COP/Secretariat)

Other institutions

< 2 °C

• Who orchestrates?

• How could orchestration take place?

• What are the outcomes?

Page 7: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Modes of orchestration

Tracking

• Mapping existing initiatives

• Register

Benchmarking and assessing

• Set standards

• Assessing aggregate effects

Catalyzing

• Identifying governance gaps

• Funding new initiatives

Page 8: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Orchestration by the UNFCC: the story so far

Tracking

• Mapping existing initiatives and commitments

• Illustrating mitigation potential

• Registry (NAZCA portal)

Catalyzing

• Mandating action (e.g. ICAO/IMO)

• Enhancing visibility (e.g. Momentum for Change; Technical Expert Meetings)

Page 9: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

The case of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)

Black carbon

Tropospheric ozone

Methane HFCs

LRTAP Convention/ Gothenburg Protocol

Montreal Protocol ()

IMO

Climate and Clean Air Coalition

Arctic Council

Global Methane Initiative

UNFCCC

Page 10: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

SLCPs – Why (not) orchestrate?

Arguments in favour

• Tackling SLCPs has climate mitigation benefits; how does it all add up?

• Avoid duplication of efforts and inconsistencies (e.g. black carbon reporting)

• Link funding to action

Arguments against

• Links with UNFCCC can politicize other venues and delay action on the ground

• May detract from action on CO2

Page 11: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Limitations of orchestration by UNFCCC

• Accountability mechanisms may attract but also deter action outside UNFCCC

• Not all actions and outcomes are quantifiable

• Intermediaries may be created out of dissatisfaction with UNFCCC

• Distraction from negotiations

• Resource limitations

=> Should UNFCCC try to orchestrate at all?

Page 12: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Conclusions

• Global climate governance is fragmented: the question is how to make best use of diversity

• Role of UNFCCC is increasingly shifting away from regulator to facilitator of action at national, subnational and transnational levels

• Orchestration may be useful mode of governance connecting UNFCCC and other international institutions and transnational governance arrangements, but its potential should not be overstated

Page 13: Van asselt h_20150709_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_herpin

Merci beaucoup! / Thank you! Further reading

Asselt H van (2014) The fragmentation of global climate governance. Edward Elgar.

Asselt, H van, F Zelli (2014) Connect the Dots: Managing the Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16: 137-155.

Betsill, M et al. (2015). Building Productive Links between the UNFCCC and the Broader Climate Governance Landscape. Global Environmental Politics 15(2), 1-10.

Biermann, F et al. (2009). The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures. Global Environmental Politics 9: 14-40.

Moncel R, H van Asselt (2012) All hands on deck! Mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. RECIEL 21:163-176.

Zelli, F, H van Asselt (2013) The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance – Cause, Consequences and Responses. Global Environmental Politics 13: 1-13.

Zelli, F (2011) The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. WIREs Climate Change 2: 255-270.