Transnational Climate Governance Research Articles

Climate-biodiversity nexus in transnational climate governance: variation across net zero initiatives

The Glasgow Climate Pact recognizes the importance of biodiversity protection for climate action. While climate and biodiversity governance processes remain separated at the intergovernmental level, transnational initiatives may provide opportunities to better integrate these two important issues. If linkages between the two cannot be well managed in transnational action, we might be running the risk of achieving a net zero economy at the expenses of nature. How do transnational governance initiatives understand and address the linkages between climate change and biodiversity protection? We tackle this question by assessing the targets on biodiversity identified by 25 partner initiatives of the Race to Zero – a UN-backed campaign with clear criteria to rally non-state and subnational action for achieving net zero by 2050. Our study shows variation within the campaign: 28% of its partner initiatives did not consider biodiversity at all, whilst 36% of the partner initiatives have identified detailed commitments and action plans to ensure no harm on biodiversity. Overall, more than two-thirds of the partner initiatives had mentioned the role of biodiversity in climate action. Considering possible explanatory factors of the variation observed, we suggest that the target sector and engagement with environment-oriented organizations are likely to lead transnational governance initiatives to consider biodiversity alongside emission reductions in net zero strategies and commitments. The study sheds light linkages between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection in the recent net zero movement and proposes policy recommendations for transnational initiatives to better integrate climate and biodiversity targets.

Rights-Based Climate Litigation in South Africa and the Netherlands

Abstract Academic research into international climate change litigation has shown that the courts yield significant power in bringing about an awareness of climate impacts as well as firmly entrenching rights and responsibilities for claimants and defendants. In April 2022, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report noted in some detail how climate litigation is shaping climate governance. This article considers these statements within the framework of how courts have drawn on fundamental constitutional rights even without an exclusive reliance on the right to a healthy environment within the jurisdiction of South African climate litigation. The objective of this study is to investigate this claim by analysing the available legal mechanisms in South Africa and what legal strategies have been used in climate litigation to determine how South African climate litigation has shaped climate governance in comparison to climate litigation from the Netherlands. The core analysis examines firstly what the litigation is seeking to achieve, secondly which legal mechanisms and avenues were relied upon and thirdly, how this resonates between different jurisdictions. The key results will contribute to an understanding of the contribution that South African and Dutch climate litigation lends to global climate governance, the extent to which litigation relies on entrenched fundamental rights; it further tracks how, if at all, transnational climate governance litigation has developed in this respect.

From Practices to Praxis: ASEAN's Transnational Climate Governance Networks as Communities of Practice

In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), member states recognise the need for multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder engagement on climate change, but the participation of non-state actors in regional processes remains limited. This research focuses on the case study of three transnational governance networks on climate change in ASEAN and their efforts to participate in regional governance mechanisms. Data from semi-structured interviews of network members and texts of relevant documents are analysed from the perspectives of the communities of practice theory and participatory governance. This study finds that transnational networks in ASEAN provide non-state actors with opportunities to participate in regional governance of climate change by engaging in shared practices. However, the question on whether their practices can be considered as meaningful participation needs to be addressed. Hence, analysing transnational networks as communities of practice can help explain how practices bring about continuity and change in ASEAN's governance of climate change.

Can’t buy me love: billionaire entrepreneurs’ legitimation strategies in transnational climate governance

ABSTRACT Several billionaires have recently emerged as leaders of climate governance. So far, little research has examined how they legitimize their involvement in climate networks. We argue that billionaire governance entrepreneurs have high levels of resources but low procedural legitimacy. They pursue output legitimacy to support their political action, highlighting their effectiveness in managing climate issues. Their main strategies, depoliticization, outgrouping, and technical solutionism, may give them short-term legitimacy but risk undermining their long-term goals of addressing climate change. We analyze the discursive legitimation strategies of a successful billionaire entrepreneur in transnational climate governance, Michael Bloomberg. Our empirical analysis is based on the study of more than 800 statements, speeches, and news releases related to Bloomberg’s climate action from 2010 to 2021. It contributes to the study of entrepreneurship, leadership, philanthropy, and transnational actors in climate governance.

Shaping Interstate Decision‐Making? Framing as a Persuasive Tactic in Transnational Climate Governance

AbstractSmall hydropower plants (SHPs) are posing a significant risk to the environment in Europe, whilst their contribution to the energy sector is rather low. This article is examining civil society organisations (CSOs) lobbying activity, during 2017–2018, on opposing the construction of SHPs in Ukraine and Moldova. It is argued that CSOs framed their cause as a legal issue, and not just as an environmental one, aiming at amplifying their persuasive power. First, it is analysed how CSOs framed their cause when interacting with citizens and media, and second, with international organisations. Framing is systematically studied based on media content analysis in both countries and on reports published by CSOs within the Eastern Partnership framework. The findings contribute to a better understanding of framing, by bridging the literature on social movement and transnational climate governance.

Introduction

AbstractAcknowledging the exponential growth and global dimension of climate litigation, this introductory piece to this Special Section starts by situating this phenomenon in the context of the scholarly debate on polycentric and multi-level climate governance. It highlights both the strategic use of climate litigation as a tool to establish responsibilities and push for a more ambitious mitigation and adaptation agenda, but also as an opportunity to better understand the role of courts in public policy governance. The second part of the article then proceeds to discuss the main findings arising from the various contributions grouped in this section, and concludes by arguing that further research is needed in order to properly understand the role and contribution of climate change litigation to transnational climate governance.

Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research

Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the emerging field of solar geoengineering—a novel technology intended to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate impacts—many of their most significant activities, including knowledge dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with transnational governance and transnational governance is important to reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as a critical component of governance. Exercising influence, for example, through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational governance—it complements direct governing with indirect efforts to inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and governed. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and substate engagements beyond the state.

An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites

This study develops a climate communication recognition scheme (CCRS) for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites (WHS), in order to explore the communicative power of heritage to mobilize stakeholders around climate change. We present this scheme with the aim to influence site management and tourist decision-making by increasing climate awareness at heritage sites and among visitors and encouraging the incorporation of carbon management into heritage site management. Given the deficits and dysfunction in international governance for climate mitigation and inspired by transnational environmental governance tools such as ecolabels and environmental product information schemes, we offer “climate communication recognition schemes” as a corollary tool for transnational climate governance and communication. We assess and develop four dimensions for the CCRS, featuring 50 WHS: carbon footprint analysis, narrative potential, sustainability practices, and the impacts of climate change on heritage resources. In our development of a CCRS, this study builds on the “branding” value and recognition of UNESCO World Heritage, set against the backdrop of increasing tourism—including the projected doubling of international air travel in the next 15–20 years—and the implications of this growth for climate change. The CCRS, titled Climate Footprints of Heritage Tourism, is available online as an ArcGIS StoryMap.

Effective governance of transnational adaptation initiatives

Transnational climate governance has mainly been preoccupied with climate change mitigation, both in practice and as studied in academic literature. However, transnationally governed adaptation initiatives are emerging and increasing in scale. This paper analyses the effectiveness of transnational adaptation initiatives as a particular knowledge gap in this changing evolving governance landscape. Based on a new dataset of 40 initiatives that are governing adaptation across borders and that include non-state actors, it offers an overview assessment. It asks: do transnational adaptation initiatives achieve their stated goals and objectives, and which factors explain their ability to contribute to effective climate change adaptation? Drawing on transnational climate and sustainable development governance literature, an analytical framework is developed to assess to what extent ‘actors’, ‘process’, ‘institutional design’ and ‘context’ can explain effective outcomes. The assessment found that while almost two-thirds of the initiatives were highly effective in achieving goals and objectives by producing outputs, only one-third were highly effective in achieving outcomes, in the sense of leading to substantial change in behaviour of target groups. Where initiatives are effective, the main factors determining success are strong leadership and orchestration, good process management and staff resources, a focus on standard-setting and service provision rather than knowledge transfer, a high level of institutionalisation through binding rules for partners, and good coordination with international regimes. Perhaps less expected in view of the voluntary involvement of actors in transnational adaptation initiatives, initiatives based on ‘hard’ functions (i.e. standard-setting and service provision as opposed to knowledge transfer) and binding rules for partners were found to be more effective.

‘A very human business’—Transnational networking initiatives and domestic climate action

Abstract The past two decades have witnessed a proliferation of transnational networking initiatives aimed at addressing climate change. Previous work has suggested that these initiatives largely achieve their governance functions by fostering learning and resource acquisition. Our particular contribution seeks to advance current understanding of networking initiatives by suggesting that they may additionally perform social and emotional roles which galvanise, energise and motivate actors to pursue actions which advance domestic climate goals. To illustrate our argument, we examine GLOBE International, an inter-parliamentary institution focused on supporting the development of domestic legislation around sustainable development. Based on semi-structured interviews with legislators, we provide evidence that GLOBE functions as a network for learning, and particularly political learning. Yet participation in the group setting of the initiative’s summits has additionally given rise to feelings of unity, emotional energy and inspiration. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings, which paint a richer, more complex picture of transnational climate governance than previously acknowledged in the literature.

The Growing Recognition of Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives in the UN Climate Regime: Implications for Legal Scholarship

The UN climate regime has served as the focal point for interstate cooperation on climate change in the political and legal domains for the last twenty-six years. However, since the lead-up to the Paris Agreement, the regime’s interstate elements have been complemented by an evolving transnational sphere of governance in which sub-national and non-state actors engage in voluntary cross-border initiatives. These initiatives serve two key functions: first, they facilitate and implement climate action at the sub-national level and in the private sector, and second, they promote transnational normative frameworks which require members to take active steps to address climate change. This article describes how the UN climate regime has developed to recognize transnational climate governance initiatives, and it reflects on the implications of this development for legal scholarship on international climate change law.

Transnational Municipal Climate Networks and the Politics of Standardisation: The Contested Role of Climate Data in the New Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

This article analyses the formation of a new global network, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM), by two existing initiatives, the EU-based Covenant of Mayors and the UN-supported Compact of Mayors. While this merger of two transnational networks provides evidence for the increased coordination and standardisation of transnational municipal climate action, this remains a contentious and incomplete process. The article identifies different modes of transnational climate governance that have contributed to conflict between the founding networks and zooms in on the role of municipal climate data. Using empirical evidence, it analyses the contested politics of municipal climate data, including the role of the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) as a standard tool, the definition of a common target, and the inclusion of financial actors. Concerns over the reshaping of public-private boundaries and the possible commodification of public data are identified as major obstacles for the (EU) Covenant of Mayors, which consequentially seeks to remain as independent as possible within the new GCoM. Data politics emerges as a crucial factor for the future direction of transnational municipal climate policy and the ongoing processes of standardisation and coordination.

Local energy agencies and cities’ participation in translocal climate governance

AbstractWhen and under what conditions do cities commit to participating in translocal climate networks? This study examines the initial driving factors behind city participation in the Covenant of Mayors in Europe. Studying cities’ adherence or non‐adherence to transnational climate governance enhances our understanding of the links between local and national institutions, socioeconomic conditions, and transnational climate activities. Event history analyses of 261 cities in 27 European countries examine associations between when cities signed the Covenant and local and national political–economic factors. My analysis suggests that the existence of local energy agencies, other translocal climate network memberships, a high level of employment and the national adoption of renewable energy are factors that facilitate cities’ participation in the Covenant. However, country‐level drivers such as years of European Union accession, climate change awareness and gross domestic product growth are not as significant as cities’ individual attributes. The results of the analysis testify to the growing significance of local institutional capacities—knowledge, relational resources and mobilization—in expediting cities’ participation in transnational climate governance.

Clouds or Sunshine in Katowice? Transparency in the Paris Agreement Rulebook

This article identifies outstanding issues regarding the adoption of MPGs for the transparency framework of the Paris Agreement at the Conference of the Parties in Katowice in December 2018. The article first offers a definition of the concept of transparency, and reviews certain salient elements in the literature. This includes a warning that adopting transparency rules that elude questions of accountability of Parties for their domestic policies and equity in burden sharing may fail the objective of building the trust and confidence for which the transparency framework was adopted. The article next offers a brief overview of the requirements of Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, before assessing three key matters raised by the August 2018 draft of the MPGs in light of the literature and recent submissions by Parties. The article underscores the relevance of including a focus on ex ante accountability for climate policies in the way the transparency framework is set to operate, in view of the overall focus of the Paris Agreement on prevention of environmental harm. Comparing the potential of transparency rules to promote accountability of reporting and accountability of implementation of Parties’ commitments, it further argues for the inclusion of both foci in the modalities. Lastly, the article highlights that the Paris Rulebook presents a unique opportunity to craft specific roles for non-Party stakeholders in the operation of the transparency framework, thereby developing the links between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and transnational climate governance initiatives.

The Growing Recognition of Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives in the UN Climate Regime: Implications for Legal Scholarship

The UN climate regime has served as the focal point for interstate cooperation on climate change in the political and legal domains for the last twenty-six years. However, since the lead-up to the Paris Agreement, the regime’s interstate elements have been complemented by an evolving transnational sphere of governance in which sub- national and non-state actors engage in voluntary cross-border initiatives. These initiatives serve two key functions: first, they facilitate and implement climate action at the sub-national level and in the private sector, and second, they promote transnational normative frameworks which require members to take active steps to address climate change. This article describes how the UN climate regime has developed to recognize transnational climate governance initiatives, and it reflects on the implications of this development for legal scholarship on international climate change law.

Voluntary global business initiatives and the international climate negotiations: A case study of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

The past few years have witnessed the emergence of a plethora of transnational climate governance experiments. They have been developed by a broad range of actors, such as cities, non-profit organizations, and private corporations. Several scholars have lately devoted particular attention to voluntary global business initiatives in the policy domain of climate change. Their studies have provided considerable insights into the role and function of such new modes of climate governance. However, the precise nature of the relationship between the various climate governance experiments and the international climate negotiations has not been analyzed in enough detail. Against this backdrop, the present article explores the interplay of a business sector climate governance experiment, i.e. the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) with the international climate regime. On the one hand, the article underscores that the GHG Protocol has filled a regulatory gap in global climate policy-making by providing the means for the corporate sector to comprehensively account and report their GHGs. On the other hand, it reveals that the application of the GHG Protocol guidelines depends to a large extent on the existence of an overarching policy framework set up by nation-states at the intergovernmental level. Only if private companies receive a clear political signal that stringent mandatory GHG emission controls and a global market-based instrument are at least likely to be adopted will they put substantial efforts into the accurate measurement and management of their GHGs. Thus, this article points to the limits of climate governance experimentation and suggests that business sector climate governance experiments need to be embedded in a coherent international regulatory setting which generates a clear stimulus for corporate action.

The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: the UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance

ABSTRACTIs orchestration democratically legitimate? On one hand, debates concerning the legitimacy and democratic deficits of international politics continue unabated. On the other, the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has progressively engaged in processes of orchestration culminating in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Scholarship on orchestration has almost exclusively focused on how to ensure effectiveness while excluding normative questions. This lacuna is addressed by arguing that orchestration should be assessed according to its democratic credentials. The promises and pitfalls of orchestration can be usefully analyzed by applying a set of democratic values: participation, deliberation, accountability, and transparency. Two major orchestration efforts by the UNFCCC both pre- and post-Paris are shown to have substantive democratic shortfalls, not least with regard to participation and accountability. Ways of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of orchestration are identified.

Aligning subnational climate actions for the new post-Paris climate regime

The Paris Agreement solidified the participation of subnational governments in global mitigation efforts, continuing the shift towards a polycentric landscape of climate action. Many scholars have suggested that the success of this emergent regime will depend, at least in part, on its ability to integrate climate action from non-state and subnational entities. Vertical alignment, the linking and coordination of policies between different levels of government, and horizontal alignment, the connection of peer cities and regions through networks of transnational climate governance, can help facilitate needed coherence. But, how do multiple actors link or interact at multiple scales and domains? In this article, we develop an analytical framework for examining different modes of vertical and horizontal alignment that subnational actors have employed to address climate change mitigation. We identify key elements in nine case studies of subnational climate action to examine the intersectionalities of alignment mechanisms that catalyze subnational climate actions. The paper concludes with a discussion about how vertical and horizontal alignment pathways overlap, intersect, and exhibit trade-offs.

Accountability Challenges in the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change

AbstractThis article discusses challenges to accountability in the context of transnational climate governance. It argues that the emergence of a distinct transnational regime complex and the increasingly integrated structure of international and transnational climate governance create new challenges for using established analytical frameworks that rely on accountability regimes for individual actor types. Instead, studying accountability requires a system‐level conceptualization and a revisiting of accountability regimes, taking diversity and networked governance structures into account. Using data from the CONNECT‐project on the transnational regime complex for climate change, the article uses a framework of six elements of an accountability regime to identify three overarching accountability challenges. First, the expanding borders of the transnational regime complex for climate change are starting to shift accountability from the multilateral level (the UNFCCC) to a networked and more intricate structure. Second, transparency, monitoring, and reporting remain an urgent challenge despite a rapidly increasing flow of data and repositories in particular concerning ex‐post impacts. Third, the availability and utility of sanctions are poorly understood in the context of transnational climate governance.

Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions

ABSTRACTAt COP21 in Paris, governments reiterated the importance of ‘non-Party’ contributions, placing big bets that the efforts of cities, regions, investors, companies, and other social groups will help keep average global warming limited to well under 2°C. However, there is little systematic knowledge concerning the performance of non-state and subnational efforts. We established a database of 52 climate actions launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit in New York to assess output performance – that is, the production of relevant outputs – to understand whether they are likely to deliver social and environmental impacts. Moreover, we assess to which extent climate actions are implemented across developed and developing countries. We find that climate actions are starting to deliver, and output performance after one year is higher than one might expect from previous experiences with similar actions. However, differences exist between action areas: resilience actions have yet to produce specific outputs, whereas energy and industry actions perform above average. Furthermore, imbalances between developing and developed countries persist. While many actions target low-income and lower-middle-income economies, the implementation gap in these countries remains greater. More efforts are necessary to mobilize and implement actions that benefit the world’s most vulnerable people.Policy relevanceClimate actions by non-state and subnational actors are an important complement to the multilateral climate regime and the associated contributions made by national governments. Although such actions hold much potential, we still know very little about how they could deliver in practice. This article addresses this knowledge gap, by showing how 52 climate actions announced at the UN Climate Summit in 2014 have performed thus far. Based on our analysis, we argue that the post-Paris action agenda for non-state and subnational climate action should (1) find more effective ways to incentivize private sector actors to engage in transnational climate governance through actions that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote climate resilience in a tangible manner; (2) identify factors underlying effectiveness, to take appropriate measures to support underperforming climate actions; and (3) address the large implementation gap of climate actions in developing countries.