Climate change politics through a global pledge-and-review regime: Positions among negotiators and stakeholders

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 794-811

  Buhr, Katarina ^a,b   Roth, Susanna ^a   Stigson, Peter ^a,c  

^a IVL SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c MÄLARDALEN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Climate change; Critique; Legitimacy; Negotiations; Pledge and review; Politics

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GLOBAL CHANGE; LITERATURE REVIEW; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; STAKEHOLDER; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84897085596     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su6020794     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Heindl, P.; Voigt, S. Supply and demand structure for international offset permits under the Copenhagen Pledges. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law Economics 2012, 12, 343-360.
2. The UNFCCC defines a party as follows: "A state (or regional economic integration organization such as the European Union) that agrees to be bound by a treaty and for which the treaty has entered into force". http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php. In November 2012, there were 195 Parties (194 States and 1 regional economic integration organization) to the UNFCCC (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php).
3. Dubash, N.K.; Rajamani, L. Beyond Copenhagen: Next steps. Clim. Policy 2010, 10, 593-599.
4. Hare, W.; Stockwell, S.; Flachsland, C.; Oberthür, S. The architecture of the global climate regime: a top-down perspective. Clim. Policy 2010, 10, 600-614.
5. Rayner, S. How to Eat an Elephant: A Bottom-Up Approach to Climate Policy. Clim. Policy 2010, 10, 615-621.
6. Vellinga, P. Copenhagen, evaluation and future prospects. J. Integr. Envir. Sci. 2010, 7, 1-4.
7. United Nations Environment Programme. The Emissions Gap Report 2012; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012.
8. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Appendix I-Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. Available online: http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_ dec_2009/items/5264.php (accessed on 20 May 2013).
9. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Appendix II-Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions of Developing Country Parties. Available online: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5265.php (accessed on 20 May 2013).
10. Aldy, J.E.; Stavins, R.N. Climate Policy Architectures for the Post-Kyoto world. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2008, 50, 6-17.
11. Lewis, J.; Diringer, E. A working Paper, Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Policy-Based Commitments in a Post-2012 Climate Framework. Available online: http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Policy-Based%20Commitments%20in%20a%20Post-2012%20 Climate%20Framework.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2013).
12. Pizer, W.A. Practical Global Climate Policy. In Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World; Aldy, J.E., Stavins, R.N., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 280-314.
13. Falkner, R.; Stephan, H.; Vogler, J. International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a "Building Blocks" Approach. Global Policy 2010, 1, 252-262.
14. Bodansky, D. Whither the Kyoto Protocol? Available online: http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/Bodansky_Viewpoint-Final.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2014).
15. Dai, X. Global regime and national change. Clim. Policy 2010, 10, 622-637.
16. Den Elzen, M.G.J.; Berk, M. Bottom Up Approaches to Defining Future Climate Mitigation Commitments. Available online: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/728001029.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2013).
17. Miyaoka, I. Japan's conciliation with the United States in climate change negotiations. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2004, 4, 73-96.
18. United Nations. General Assembly, A/RES/45/212, 71st plenary meeting, 21 December 1990. Available online: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r212.htm (accessed on 10 December 2013).
19. Roberts, T. Multipolarity and the New World (Dis) Order: US Hegemonic Decline and the Fragmentation of the Global Climate Regime. Global Environ. Change 2011, 21, 776-784.
20. Saran, S. Irresistible forces and immovable objects: A debate on contemporary climate politics. Clim. Policy 2011, 10, 678-683.
21. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ideas and Proposals on the Elements Contained in Paragraph 1 of the Bali Action Plan. Available online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/misc04p01.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2013).
22. Busby, J. Climate change and collective action: Troubles in the transition to a Post-Oil Economy. St Antony's International Review 2006, 2, 35-55.
23. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Parties & Observers. Available online: http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php (accessed on 12 December 2013)
24. Hjerpe, M.; Linnér, B.-O. Functions of COP side-events in climate-change governance. Clim. Policy 2010, 10, 167-180.
25. Karlsson, C.; Hjerpe, M.; Parker, C.F.; Linnér, B.-O. Looking for leaders: perceptions of climate change leadership among climate change negotiation participants. Global Environ. Polit. 2011, 11, 89-107.
26. Parker, C.F.; Karlsson, C.; Hjerpe, M.; Linnér, B.-O. Fragmented climate change leadership: making sense of the ambiguous outcome of COP-15. Environmental Politics 2012, 21, 268-286.
27. Weiler, J.H.H. The transformation of Europe. Yale Law J. 1991, 100, 2403-2483.
28. Bodansky, D. Legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law. Am. J. Inter. L. 1999, 93, 596-624.
29. Bäckstrand, K. The democratic legitimacy of global governance after Copenhagen. In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society; Dryzek, J.S., Norgaard, R.B., Schlosberg, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 669-684.
30. Deephouse, D.L.; Suchman, M. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism; Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., Sahlin, K., Eds.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 49-77.
31. Stevenson, H.; Dryzek, J.S. The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: A deliberative democratic approach. Crit. Pol. Stud. 2012, 6, 1-18.
32. Alcock, F. Conflicts and coalitions within and across the ENGO community. Global Environ. Polit. 2008, 8, 66-91.
33. Gough, C.; Shackley, S. The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOs. Int. Aff. 2001, 77, 329-346.
34. Betsill, M.M.; Correll, E. NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environ. Polit. 2001, 1, 65-85.
35. Betsill, M.M.; Correll, E. NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in Environmental Negotiations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
36. Gulbrandsen, L.H.; Andresen, S. NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol: Compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environ. Polit. 2004, 4, 54-75.
37. Nasiritousi, N.; Hjerpe, M.; Buhr, K. Whose views are represented? Opinions and discourses among participants at the international climate change negotiations. Available online: http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/lund2012/LC2012-paper120.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2013).
38. Bernauer, T.; Betzold, C. Civil society in global environmental governance. JED 2012, 21, 62-66.
39. Newell, P. Climate for Change: Non-State Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
40. Muñoz Cabré, M. Issue-Linkages to climate change measured through NGO participation in the UNFCCC. Global Environ. Polit. 2011, 11, 10-22.
41. McCormick, J. The role of environmental NGOs in international regimes. In The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy; Norman, J.V., Axelrod, R., Eds.; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1999; pp. 52-71.
42. Depledge, J. The Organization of Global Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Change Regime; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005.
43. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Guidelines for the Participation of Representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations at Meetings of the Bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2003. Available online: http://unfccc.int/files/parties_and_observers/ngo/application/pdf/coc_guide.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2013).
44. At the 17th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC and the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP-17/CMP-7) held at the end of 2011 in Durban, South Africa, there were 6,164 state party participants and 6,975 observer participants.
45. Schroeder, H.; Lovell, H. The role of non-nation state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Clim. Policy 2011, 12, 23-37.
46. Buhr, K.; Hjerpe, M. Expectations on corporate climate action under regulatory uncertainty. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 403-419.
47. The workshops observed were organized by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC, in Bangkok, 5-8 April, 2011, and Bonn, 7-17 June, 2011.
48. Due to, for instance, insufficient variation in the explanatory variable and too few control variables.
49. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Fifteenth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009 Addendum Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Fifteenth Session. Available online: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2013).
50. United Nations Environment Programme. The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? United Nations Environment Programme Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
51. United Nations Environment Programme. Bridging the Emissions Gap: A UNEP Synthesis Report; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011.
52. Ringius, L.; Torvanger, A.; Underdal, A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2002, 1-22.
53. Stigson, P.; Buhr, K.; Roth, S. The ambitions in Copenhagen pledges: Country case studies of drivers and barriers. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 21-36.
54. A standard Two-sided t-test shows that the means between the two samples was significance for voluntary (T-test; t = 3.1385, DF = 315, p < 0.0019), not all parties (T-test; t = 2.2140, DF = 306, p < 0.0276) and 2 degree target (T-test; t = 1.9714, DF = 314, p < 0.0496).
55. Andresen, S.; Agrawala, S. Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environ. Change 2002, 12, 41-51.
56. Centre for International Sustainable Development Law. The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: Origins and Scope, A CISDL Legal Brief. 2002. Available online: http://cisdl.org/public/docs/news/brief_common.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2013).
57. A standard Two-sided t-test shows that the means between the two samples (A1 ENGOs and NA1 ENGOs) was significance for voluntary (T-test; t = 2.9191, DF = 56, p < 0.0050), different assumptions (T-test; t = 1.9664, DF = 55, p < 0.0543) and 2 degree target (T-test; t = 3.6305, DF = 40, p < 0.0008).
58. Mean value is 6.74 and standard variation is 0.66.
59. Two-sided t-test shows no significant different between the two samples (A1 negotiators and NA1 negotiators).
60. Den Elzen, M.; Roelfsema, M.; Hof, A.; Böttcher, H.; Grassi, G. Analysing the emission gap between pledged emission reductions under the Cancún agreements and the 2 °C climate target. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2012.
61. Höhne, N.; Taylor, C.; Elias, R.; den Elzen, M.; Riahi, K.; Chen, C.; Rogelj, J.; Grassi, G.; Wagner, F.; Levin, K.; et al. National GHG emissions reduction pledges and 2 °C: comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 2012, 12, 356-377.