| Date post: | 22-May-2015 |
| Category: |
News & Politics |
| Upload: | tim-cadman |
| View: | 339 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Climate change and global policy regimes:
Towards institutional legitimacy
Edited byTimothy CadmanUNU Institute for Ethics Governance and LawGriffith University
http://globalclimatechangepolicy.org
Schedule
11.00: Welcome: Professor Charles Sampford IEGL11.05: Keynote: Professor Roger Stone: Global climate and change11.15: Climate change and global policy regimes: Tim Cadman11.30: Evaluating the Clean Development Mechanism: Tek Maraseni11.40: Climate change and global health governance: Jeff Gow11:50 Population movements and climate change: Richard Hil12.00 Local government responses to climate change: Heather Zeppel12:10 Climate change reporting and non-state actors: Julie Cotter12.20 Conclusions and recommendations: Tim CadmanQuestionsRefreshments
2
Purpose of the book
• How the various institutional arrangements, actors and agendas in the global climate ‘regime complex’ impact on governance quality
• Institutions can help or hinder actions taken to tackle the problem of climate change
• Using the approach of governance analysis, the book explores these actions
• Evaluates the legitimacy of the responses to human-induced climate change and
• provides governance & policy recommendations.
5
Institutions and instruments in the governance of climate change management
• 1991: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set the intellectual framework for global climate deliberations
• 1994: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into force
• Kyoto Protocol (KP): international emissions trading (IET), joint implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
• 2006: change in Conferences of Parties (COP) from mitigating climate change to adaptation– no longer a technical environmental problem, but as a
societal problem with an environmental component• Evolving mechanisms and proposals relating to policy
development and implementation. 6
Interests and issues in the governance of climate change management
• 1992: UNCED, Agenda 21, embed non-state participation in the normative framework of international environmental policy deliberations
• Global cooperation across nations, regions and networks including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and corporations
• Sustainable development: bridge for integrating climate change and development policies
• Market mechanisms require cooperation between state and non-state actors
• Tension between governance practices that balance sustainable development, market efficiency and North/South equality
7
Responses beyond the climate regime• Plurilateral/bilateral: Asia pacific Partnership (APP),
Major Emitters Forum• Finance: Chicago Climate Exchange (CCE)• Local government: International Council for Local
Environment Initiatives (ICLEI)• Human services:
– Health: extreme weather events, changes in distribution of infectious diseases and Pressure on public health and health care infrastructure
– Migration: term environmental refugee first appearing in the 1970s, further studies in 1985 and again in 1995,
• studies estimated the number of refugees to be at 25 million, but it could rise to as many as 200 million by 2025
• Water & food availability, quality and quantity – temperature changes between 2◦C and 3◦C could affect
the water resources of as many as three billion people 8
Evaluating institutional governance legitimacy: Developments in research and analysis
• Calls for reform of existing governance arrangements:– fragmentation, lack of integration
• Concerns centre upon governance legitimacy:– ‘input oriented’: means versus ends– ‘output oriented’: ends versus means
Book argues:1. Ends and means are equally important: both play a role
in legitimacy2. Institutional arrangements have a bearing on governance
quality 3. Greater focus on social processes that drive decision-
making 4. Structures and processes are fundamental to
understanding the quality of contemporary governance 9
Model to determine quality of governance
Figure 1: Model of Governance Quality (Cadman 2011)
StructureParticipatory
Policy instrument
Governance system
Interaction ProcessDeliberative
Outcomes(Substantive and Behavioural; i.e. policies and/or
programmes which solve problems and change behaviour)
Legitimacy
Inputs
Evaluation of governance quality
Outputs
10
• Legitimacy is framed quite specifically in the approach adopted in this volume, as- it is conceived as the end point of activity within an institution.- It is determined by the degree of successful interaction between the
structural and procedural components of the institution’s governance system:
How to determine quality of governance arrangements?
Principle Criterion Indicator
“Meaningful participation”
Interest representation
InclusivenessEqualityResources
Organisational responsibility
AccountabilityTransparency
“Productive deliberation”
Decision making
DemocracyAgreement
Dispute settlement
Implementation
Behaviour change
Problem solving
DurabilityCadman (2011) and Lammerts van; Bueren and Blom (1997) 11
Table 1: Normative framework of principles, criteria and indicators of governance quality
‘Good’ governance is therefore not attributed to any single institutional arrangement, such as accountability or transparency (though these are of course important)
- the approach adopted looks governance at a systemic level - Provides information about a wider range of attributes affecting
governance quality and their impact on climate governance
Table of Contents
12
Introduction: Global Governance and Climate Change; Timothy Cadman1.The Discourses of Climate Change; Chris Taylor 2.A Cooling Climate for Negotiations: Intergovernmentalism and Its Limits; Fred Gale3.Gender and Climate Change: Stakeholder Participation and Conceptual Currency in the Climate Negotiations Regime; Lauren E. Eastwood4. Governing Adaptation Policies and Programmes; Geoff Cockfield5.Applying an Empirical Evaluation to the Governance Legitimacy of Carbon-offset Mechanisms on the Basis of Stakeholder Perceptions; Timothy Cadman6.Evaluating the Clean Development Mechanism; Tek Narayan Maraseni7.Stakeholders in Climate Policy Instruments: What Role for Financial Institutions?; Matthew Haigh8.Challenges for Global Health Governance in Responding to the Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health; Jeff Gow9.Climate Change and Sustainable Water Management; Jamie Pittock10.Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and Global Governance Regimes in the Context of Climate Change and Food Availability; Nick Rose11. Innovation and Global to Local Energy Governance; Guilherme B. R. Lambais & Guilherme Gonçalves12.Climate Change, Population Movements and Governance: Case Studies in Response Mechanisms; Richard Hil13.Migration and climate change: global governance regimes and the incorporation of climate change Displacement; Andrea C. Berringer14.The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Program: Local Government Networks in Urban Climate Governance; Heather Zeppel15.The Influence of Non-State Actors on Corporate Climate Change Disclosure; Julie CotterConclusion; All Contributors
Summary: Kyoto Protocol & CDM Summary: Kyoto Protocol & CDM
Developing country
Annex B country
Annex B country
Clean development mechanism
Joint implementationEmissions trading
Objectives of CDM:Help developed (Northern) countries’ emitters (companies) meet their quantified reductions obligations at lower costHelp developing (Southern) countries with technology transfer and in achieving sustainable development
FindingsFindings
Exponential growth of CDM (e.g. $2.6 - $32.8 billion 2005-2008), but
Regional imbalance (BRIC vs. other developing countries):
China and India have captured over 70% of project investment
China’s emissions since 1990 have increased by 100%
India’s emissions have increased by 95%
HFC- and N2O- related projects under the CDM have undermined the sustainable development objective of the mechanism.
Unilateral CDM projects
Discourage investment and
Discourage technology transfer
ConclusionsConclusions
Contribution to sustainable development objective is questionable
As a whole, CDM has not contributed to emissions reduction
Policy and Governance Policy and Governance recommendationsrecommendations
CDM projects must
Implement much stricter criteria for HFC- and N2O-related projects
Contribute to North/South technology transfer and
Enhance capacity for defining sustainable development criteria
Developing countries that have high numbers of CDM projects and CERs must genuinely reduce emissions
Developed countries must share their burden of responsibility for reducing emissions
Chapter 7
Challenges for Global Health Governance in Responding to the
Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health
Jeff [email protected]
18
Chapter Findings
19
• Summary of issues• Main findings• Conclusions• Policy and governance recommendations
Chapter 6
Climate Change, Population Movements and Governance: Case Studies in Response Mechanisms
Richard [email protected]
20
Chapter Findings
21
• Summary of issues• Main findings• Conclusions• Policy and governance recommendations
Chapter 14
The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Program: Local Government Networks in Urban Climate
Governance
Heather [email protected]
22
Local Government & Climate Change
Local authorities, municipalities, cities
Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development) UN Commission on Sustainable Development UN meetings – since 2010 COP 16 climate summitLocal Government Climate Change Networks Int. Council Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) *CCP programme, *Cities Climate Registry (2010) The Covenant of Mayors (Europe) US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement C40 Cities (Climate Leadership Group) UNEP Climate Neutral Network (19 global cities) UN Habitat ‘Cities for Climate Change Initiative’
23
Local Government & Climate Change
Corporate mitigation of GHG emissions Citizen education on GHG reduction Land use planning, building codes/standards Transportation (public/active transport) Energy infrastructure Waste services & recycling Water/wastewater utilities Sustainable/green procurement
ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Programme LG climate change policy, best practice, advocacy
24
Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
CCP Programme established by ICLEI in 1993 Over 800 municipalities in global CCP network Measure & reduce GHG emissions, set targets 5 milestones in CCP (monitor, measure, report) Energy, water and waste reduction actions Corporate and community abatement goals CCP in Australia (1997-2009), NZ (2004-09) 238 CCP councils covering 84% population CCP Partners now include 60 LGs in Aust/NZ (CCP-Adapt, CCP-Mitigate, CCP-Integrated Action)
25
CCP Programme & Governance Interest Representation Dominated by large cities & ‘North’ climate agenda Corporate mitigation leads community abatement CCP resources and software (GHG calculation)Organisational Responsibility No external auditing of CCP reports, or enforcement CCP milestones/targets listed, CCP city reportsDecision-making ICLEI USA involved LG in community GHG protocol Voluntary CCP targets set by cities, no verificationImplementation CCP changed LG behaviour on GHG/climate change CCP shaped LG climate networks in USA & Europe
CCP & Urban Climate Governance
CCP: civic environmentalism to green governance Business approach to assessing GHG emissions CCP focus on climate policy and climate actions Limited input & feedback from LG on CCP program Recommendations LG involvement in assessing reports submitted by
CCP members within each country Involving LG members in ICLEI’s collaboration with
other municipal/urban climate networks Supporting a diverse range of CCP members (North/South; large/small) at global climate
negotiations
27
Chapter 15
The Influence of Non-State Actors on Corporate Climate
Change Disclosure
Julie [email protected]
28
“You can’t manage it if you don’t measure it”
Influence of non-state actors
NGO
Conclusions
Average climate change disclosure score is 19, with a maximum of 51 out of 100
NGOs rather than traditional disclosure regulators and state actors have been most influential in improving international climate change disclosure
Measurement protocols Disclosure frameworks
GRI, CDP and CDSB have different strengths when evaluated against Cadman’s governance framework
Governance and policy recommendations
NGOs Work collaboratively with state actors to
increase international consistency across mandatory and voluntary reporting schemes
Strive for continual improvement in their standards of governance
National regulators Mandate a comprehensive set of climate change
disclosure requirements, preferably based on a rigorously determined disclosure framework
Conclusions and Recommendations:• Greater involvement of those impacted or
threatened by climate change is essential in shaping effective climate policy– Experience and expertise of different interests is more
important than their status or power• Action across the climate regime ‘complex’ remains
fragmented, and inconsistent across issue-areas – State and non-state participants should work
collaboratively across regimes– governance standards are essential to ensure consistency
• The scientific consensus on the need for action in a vast array of human systems (health, water, food, migration, etc.) is overwhelming– Business-as-usual is not an option.
34
Thank you
http://globalclimatechangepolicy.org
