Making expertise in international environmental governance: establishing loss and damage expert groups in the UNFCCC

Does increased participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) improve the democratic quality at intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)? Multilateral institutions and global governance mechanisms have emerged during the past few decades to tackle global challenges, such as climate change. However, policy making institutions such as IGOs are often viewed as lacking democratic legitimacy. The decision- making process remains tied to nation-states represented often by non-elected delegates, yet the decisions affect people who do not have a say in the process. One remedy proposed by global governance scholars to close such democratic deficit is to include a variety of stakeholders such as non-governmental actors. I challenge the conventional wisdom that assumes the democratic potential of these actors, and unpack the “blackbox” of NGOs to assess their internal politics.To assess their role in global governance, we need to understand the substantive participation and patterns of interaction among the NGOs at the governance institutions. I construct a multilevel theoretical framework from a social network perspective to understand their participation and interaction. The theoretical framework is based on transnational social movement theory and social network theory.I draw on the example of women’s groups working at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) annual conferences. Employing both quantitative statistical analysis and network analysis, I demonstrate an evident increase in women’s groups that participate substantively at the UNFCCC. How- ever, the growth is accompanied by inequality in participation. Not all groups that attend the UNFCCC participate in collective advocacy or network actively. The variation is associated with the capacity and social embeddedness of a given organization. Furthermore, the community working on women’s issues has become fragmented over- time. The fragmentation is a result of NGOs’ different strategies and understandings of their role in global climate governance. The institutional context of UNFCCC has also contributed to the fragmentation. Overall, these civil society actors contribute to the democratization of the UNFCCC process by adding new voices, establishing new issue linkages, and raising awareness for women’s rights and gender equality. At the same time, however, the internal inequality and the power imbalance could further exacerbate the democratic deficit in the global climate governance process.I have independently collected data on over 800 actors at the UN climate conferences. I have also conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with civil society representatives at the UN climate change summits in 2017 and 2018. The findings contribute to the understanding of democratic legitimacy in global governance of large-scale, transnational challenges by analyzing both macro-level network relation- ships among actors and the micro-level mechanisms among network members.

The global climate crisis has elevated the role of multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in conducting collective international responses to climate change. While the UNFCCC has facilitated landmark agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, its effectiveness in closing the persistent gap between climate ambition and implementation remains contested. This study assesses the efficacy of the UNFCCC in advancing global climate objectives amid increasing institutional complexity and persistent political inertia. Drawing on a systematic review of literature published between 2000 and 2025, combined with a structured cause-andeffect analytical framework, the research examines the institutional, political, and procedural factors shaping outcomes of the UNFCCC. The findings reveal five key results: first, increasing procedural complexity within UNFCCC negotiations reduces the capacity for timely and decisive outcomes; second, domestic political incentives influence compliance with climate commitments more strongly than formal institutional obligations; third, climate diplomacy within the COP process increasingly prioritizes symbolic consensus over binding operational decisions; fourth, expanded participation in negotiations has not resulted in more inclusive or balanced decision-making structures; and fifth, fragmentation within the global climate governance system has produced parallel initiatives and institutional experimentation beyond the UNFCCC framework. The study concludes that reforming procedures and decision-making structures is necessary to narrow the ambition–implementation gap and strengthen the effectiveness of global climate governance.

This book explores the role of feminist activists in The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and highlights the progress they have made in mainstreaming gender as a key issue in global climate governance. It is now commonplace for gender to be framed as a political issue in global climate politics within academic scholarship, but there is typically a lack of robust empirical analysis of existing advocacy approaches. Filling this lacuna, Joanna Flavell interrogates the political strategies of the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) in the UNFCCC (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Through a conceptual framework that integrates climate change with intersectional critical inquiry and political practice, Flavell analyses hundreds of historical documents, coupled with interviews and observations from two UNFCCC conferences. This research uncovers a so-far untold story about the history of the UNFCCC that foregrounds gender and feminist advocacy, highlighting the importance of the WGC in shaping dominant narratives of global climate governance through a series of rhetorical and procedural strategies. Overall, the book draws important conclusions around power in global climate governance and opens up new avenues for advancing a feminist green politics. This volume will be of great interest to students and scholars of environmental justice, climate politics and governance, environmental activism, and gender studies more broadly.

INTRODUCTION. The article examines the historical establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its role as the foundational framework for the international climate legal regime. The study highlights the importance of the choices made during the drafting of the Convention, analyzing their long–term impact on global climate governance. The research explores the events leading up to the Earth Summit (Rio Conference) in 1992, where the UNFCCC was adopted, and investigates how its fundamental principles and obligations shaped subsequent climate policies, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The study aims to contextualize the Convention within the broader historical and legal developments in international environmental law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research follows a qualitative legal–historical approach, utilizing primary sources, including treaty texts, General Assembly resolutions, advisory opinions from international courts, and official conference proceedings. Additionally, secondary sources, such as academic commentary, environmental law textbooks, and journal articles, provide insights into the evolution of international climate law. The study is divided into two key phases. 1. Historical Analysis: A chronological examination of the negotiations preceding the UNFCCC, focusing on the Stockholm Conference (1972), the Montreal Protocol (1987), and scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2. Legal Framework Analysis: An evaluation of the legal principles enshrined in the UNFCCC, such as sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and intergenerational equity, as well as an assessment of its institutional mechanisms, including the role of the Conference of the Parties (COP).RESEARCH RESULTS. The UNFCCC as a Normative Framework: Despite being considered a “framework convention” with broad and non– binding commitments, the UNFCCC introduced fundamental legal principles that later became the cornerstone of climate governance. Legal Innovations and Institutionalization: The Convention established a system of cooperation among states, creating institutional mechanisms such as the COPs, which facilitated continued legal evolution in climate governance. The establishment of the UNFCCC Secretariat further institutionalized climate negotiations. Enduring Influence on International Law: The Convention remains a reference point for climate litigation and international advisory opinions, particularly in recent cases before the Inter–American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. These legal bodies have increasingly drawn upon UNFCCC principles to determine states' obligations concerning climate change.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The article concludes that the UNFCCC, despite its perceived initial weaknesses, has proven to be a resilient and foundational legal instrument in international climate governance. The Convention's principles and procedural mechanisms have enabled the development of binding legal commitments, such as those found in the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Moreover, its flexible institutional design has allowed it to adapt to emerging challenges, such as climate litigation and advisory proceedings in international courts. Looking forward, the UNFCCC is expected to continue shaping future legal obligations related to climate action, particularly as climate disputes become more prominent in international judicial bodies. The study underscores the ongoing relevance of the UNFCCC in the face of evolving environmental challenges, reaffirming its status as the standard framework for global climate governance.

Edwards, Guy, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2015. <i>A Fragmented Continent: Latin America and the Global Politics of Climate Change</i>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

Learning among actors within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations helped transferring climate policies across countries and changed negotiation positions. Together with group pressure and leadership by key governments and non-national actors, experience, knowledge and belief-based learning types altered the UNFCCC negotiation dynamics and facilitated the Paris Agreement. Governments, the UNFCCC secretariat and NGOs created opportunities for government representatives to explore policy options and learn from each other’ successes of designing and implementing low carbon policies. These experience exchanges during and beyond the UNFCCC meetings were established to help countries share their experiences with low carbon economic development plans to address climate change while decoupling economic growth. Based on elite interviews, participant observation and document analysis, this contribution examines how learning facilitated breakthroughs in international climate negotiations. It finds that structured experience exchange of and reflection on other countries’ and non-national actors’ successful policy experiences can modify national interests as policymakers increasingly understand that climate action can support economic growth. This resulted in a higher willingness to take on more ambitious climate action commitments. Sharing experiences with climate policies can facilitate other actor’s learning how they can adapt successful policies to their specific framework conditions.

The creation of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) set out to incorporate Indigenous and local knowledge into the science–policy landscape of the climate field. The Platform is a crucial case of institutional change, as it signals an incipient shift from a science-centric toward a pluralistic approach to knowledge in global climate governance. This article traces this process of change in the politics and practices underlying the establishment and design of the Platform as an interface for Indigenous and local knowledge holders. The analysis shows that the sui generis design of the Platform was the product of bricolage (recombination) and translation (recontextualization) of disparate elements with the purpose of accommodating various political demands in an altogether new kind of knowledge–policy interface: a diverse boundary organization. The article makes an empirical contribution to the historical development of knowledge politics in the UNFCCC and a theoretical contribution to the study of boundary organizations by advancing a broader conceptualization that transcends science-centric approaches.

In this article, I argue that the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been remarkable in its efforts to mainstream gender in the Convention. The WGC has been at the forefront of the fight to embed a gender perspective into global climate change politics and has been the driving force for the UNFCCC’s progression from gender-blind in 1992 to a Gender Action Plan in 2017. Through an intersectional framework, I demonstrate that foregrounding gender as a political issue and feminist activism in the history of the UNFCCC makes visible a tricky strategic bind whereby an “insider” approach to influencing the negotiations has meant that while women–environment links are firmly embedded in UNFCCC discourse, gender–environment links are less well received. Understanding this strategic bind faced by feminist climate activists is important politically, to advance feminist arguments in global climate governance.

The last three decades have witnessed the evolution of global climate change ­governance, involving various actors and institutions at different levels, to address, on an unprecedented scale, the adverse effect of climate change. While a diverse range of institutions have taken up the issue of climate change, the institutions within the UN framework, especially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), are globally recognised as the leading institutional arrangement on this issue. Adopted in the Conference of the Parties at the end of 2015 (COP21), the Paris Agreement entered into force in November 2016 and marks a milestone for global climate governance under the UNFCCC. As well as establishing aspirational goals to limit global temperature rise this century to well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius, it establishes a basic framework for enhanced international climate cooperation post-2020 and starts a new phase of global climate governance.

Climate change is a security problem in as much as the kinds of environmental changes that may result pose risks to peace and development. However, responsibilities for the causes of climate change, vulnerability to its effects, and capacity to solve the problem, are not equally distributed between countries, classes and cultures. There is no uniformity in the geopolitics of climate change, and this impedes solutions.

The concept of non-economic losses (NELs) has recently emerged in the context of negotiations on loss and damage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). NELs are losses of values that are not commonly traded in markets but bear high relevance for those affected. Examples include loss of life, biodiversity and cultural heritage. The ongoing institutionalization of approaches to loss and damage under the UNFCCC offers great opportunities to provide a sound information base for policy- and decision-making on NELs. Available expertise to meet the emerging knowledge needs includes insights into relevant indicators, and adequate means of integrating NELs into decision-making processes that seek to reduce losses ex-ante. Further research is needed to identify or develop appropriate responses to NELs ex-post. Here, historical analogues of loss and practices of remembrance and recognition can provide valuable insights. Opportunities for engagement exist at the UNFCCC’s science-policy interface. These include participation and active engagement at open meetings under the UNFCCC to advance exchange on applied research that is framed around policy-relevant questions on NELs as well as interaction with the expert group on NELs that was set up under the designated policy body to work on loss and damage under the UNFCCC, i.e. the Warsaw International Mechanism.

Over the past twenty years, global efforts to combat climate change have become an increasingly complex matter. The central forum for multilateral, state-led climate governance, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has been complemented by numerous cross-border initiatives comprising both state and non-state actors, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), firms, academia, cities, sub-national regions and international organizations. 2The broader institutional structure has developed from a single regime to a regime complex, 3 showing increasing signs of fragmentation and functional overlaps that threaten coherence and overall effectiveness. 4 In Ostrom’s words, global climate governance is best described as a polycentric system with ‘multiple governing authorities at different scales rather than a monocentric unit’. 5 However, while fragmentation is largely accepted in theory as a ubiquitous phenomenon in global climate governance, few empirical studies exist that map institutional complexity and consequently attempt to measure degrees of fragmentation or coherence. 6sures of institutional coherence or fragmentation in global climate governance. First, we present a mapping of all governance institutions that constitute the climate change regime complex, departing from Abbott and Snidal, Abbott and Keohane and Victor. 7 We include both international and non-state public institutions (for example, the UNFCCC and transnational municipal networks) as well as the broad range of bottom-up initiatives constituted by various mixes of actors, including firms, civil society, governments and international organizations. Second, we add the organizational, agent-based dimension of climate governance by showing how the institutional meta-structure is constituted by actors and their connections. To this end we have collected data on membership in all climate governance institutions that make up the regime complex, in total more than 10,000 unique organizations. As a third analytical step, we report on advances in measuring discursive structures in the climate change regime complex. Here we analyse how the 80 climate governance institutions relate to 4 pre-identified metadiscourses in environmental policy via their mission statements. In the discussion section we revisit the three complementary assessments of the current climate change regime complex to establish whether the overall institutional structure is fragmented, that is, polycentric, or rather centralized, that is, integrated. In the conclusions we reflect on how to advance this research agenda further.

Climate governance, justice, and transnational civil society

Global climate governance under the United Nations is said to be entering a new paradigm of better relations between Indigenous Peoples and nation states, one in which Indigenous Peoples have enhanced participation and collaboration within climate decision-making. However, this paper exposes and confronts the subtle ways colonial relationships continue to be maintained and reproduced within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Insights and arguments herein are drawn from ethnographic work over four years with the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) – during COP24 and three Facilitative Work Group meetings since 2018. Drawing upon and contributing to recent literature on climate colonialism and coloniality, this paper exposes colonial spatial logics and practices of knowledge production that continue to structure an uneven and hostile global policy arena for Indigenous engagement. Moreover, this chapter attends to Indigenous-led, decolonial possibilities and visions that actively co-exist within, and disrupt, the coloniality of the dominant climate governance regime.