The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles

Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Hjerpe, Mattias; Linnér, Björn Ola

doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9243-8

Cited by 152 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Survey methods are increasingly used to examine preferences of, and activities performed by, different actors participating in the COPs of the UNFCCC in situ or by distributing surveys based on the List of Participants [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The INS has previously been used to study various aspects of climate change, such as leading actors 27 , effective solutions to climate change 28 , NAMAs 29 , preferences for conceptual or proportional historical responsibility 30 , the roles of non-state actors in climate change governance 31 , criticism of the pledge and review system 32 , and expectations on corporate climate action 33 . The surveys were distributed in person at the UNFCCC COP venues, an operating environment that hampers random sampling.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change

Hjerpe

Nasiritousi

2015

Nature Clim Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First paragraph:This year (2015) marks the 21st formal anniversary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in December a new climate treaty is expected to be reached. Yet, the UNFCCC has not been successful in setting the world on a path to meet the 2 degree target 1 . Meanwhile, other forums, such as the G20 and subnational forums, have increasingly become sites of climate change initiatives 2-6 . There has, however, to date been no systematic evaluation of what forums climate change policy-makers and practitioners perceive to be needed in order to effectively tackle climate change. Drawing on survey data from two recent UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), we show that there exists an overall preference for state-led, multilateral forums. However, preferences starkly diverge between respondents from different geographical regions and no clear contender to the UNFCCC emerges. Our results highlight difficulties in coordinating global climate policy in a highly fragmented governance landscape.International efforts to tackle the challenges posed by climate change have in the past two decades centered on multilateral negotiations under the UNFCCC. Several scholars note however that the international negotiations under the UNFCCC have produced diminishing returns over time 7 . This has generated discussions about whether multilateralism should be abandoned in favor of minilateralism 8 , along with suggestions to shift the negotiations to other smaller and more flexible forums 9 . Critics of the current multilateral approach argue that it is too cumbersome, as the decision-making process of the UNFCCC relies on finding consensus among its 195 parties 10-11 . David Victor 11 , for example, has argued that since only a dozen countries emit the majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a club like the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) would present a good candidate for making progress on climate change. Others, however, maintain that minilateral clubs like the MEF, G8, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership are not necessarily more effective than the UNFCCC, lack the legitimacy of the UN climate process 6 , and do not primarily focus on significantly increasing mitigation ambition 5 .A related discussion concerns the architecture of climate change governance. Thus far the main efforts to respond to climate change have been state-led, focusing on building a universal regime through a legally binding multilateral agreement in a so-called top-down approach. Proponents of this architecture maintain that a strong, centralized regime is necessary for ensuring effective and fair outcomes [12][13] . Critics, however, argue that a bottom-up approach, favoring more national and nonstate initiatives, would provide a more effective response [14][15][16] . A range of sub-national and transnational initiatives, such as the C40 network of major cities and the Carbon Disclosure Project, have shown that other actors can take ambitious steps when national governments resist strong ta...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change

Hjerpe

Nasiritousi

2015

Nature Clim Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An informal group of NGOs, experts and policy-makers joined together in mid-1971 to draft what became known as the Founex Report on Environment and Development, which subsequently contributed to the framing of the conference and its outcomes, and to this meeting now being considered the first instance of regional cooperation on environmental issues [27,11]. The intervening years have seen a huge growth not only in the number of NGOs participating and having access to international negotiations and policy processes [4,25] but that also have the capacities to contribute to the steering of such political processes [5]. The number of NGOs that have successfully obtained consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), for instance, has increased by more than 500% over the past 30 years (from 712 in 1984 to 4045 in 2014) [37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of NGOs in negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TIn 2004, the UN General Assembly resolved to establish a working group to consider issues pertaining to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). The group met nine times between 2006 and 2015 before concluding its mandate by recommending the development of an international legally binding instrument on BBNJ under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Based on in-depth interviews with working group participants, this research examines how NGOs contributed to the working group process. Respondents from government delegations highlighted the usefulness of workshops and side events convened by NGOs, and the role of NGOs in bringing experts on technical issues -particularly marine genetic resources and the sharing of benefits -into the BBNJ negotiations. Respondents from both NGOs and government delegations emphasized the importance of fostering personal relationships in order to ensure a steady and constructive information flow. Social media efforts by NGOs were considered by some government representatives to have occasionally hampered open discussion, although they noted that conditions have improved. The lengthy working group process was marked by substantial fluctuation in participation, particularly within government delegations from developing states. Of 1523 individuals who participated in at least one of the working group meetings, only 45 attended more than half of the meetings, and 80% of these were representing NGOs or highly industrialized countries. Respondents felt that this comparatively small number of individuals provided a source of continuity that was crucial for moving the discussions forward.

show abstract

“…The latter group in particular presents new policy fields like climate negotiations, for example [24]. It is argued that NGOs have more leeway when it comes to fact-finding than states do, especially when it comes to promoting human rights and mapping related policies -situations where states may be unwilling to report them openly or to try to correct human rights abuses [21].…”

Section: The (E-)diplomatic Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%