The ‘Black Box’ problem of orchestration: how to evaluate the performance of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda

Environmental Politics

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 715-737

  Widerberg, Oscar ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Climate governance; evaluation; intervention theory; LPAA; orchestration; UNFCCC

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GLOBAL CLIMATE; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 85018844704     PISSN: 09644016     EISSN: 17438934     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1319660     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Abbott, K.W., 2015. Orchestration. In:P.H., Pattberg and F., Zelli, eds. Encyclopedia of global environmental governance and politics. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing, 487–495.
2. Abbott, K.W., et al., 2015. International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3. Abbott, K.W., and Snidal, D., 2009. Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance:overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2), 501–578.
4. Asselt, H.V., 2016. The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the paris agreement. Climate Law, 6 (1–2), 91–108.
5. Astbury, B., and Leeuw, F.L., 2010. Unpacking black boxes:mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (3), 363–381. doi:10.1177/1098214010371972
6. Birckmayer, J.D., and Weiss, C.H., 2000. Theory-based evaluation in practice:what do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24 (4), 407–431. doi:10.1177/0193841X0002400404
7. Bodansky, D., 2010. The copenhagen climate change conference:a postmortem. The American Journal of International Law, 104 (2), 230–240. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.104.2.0230
8. Bulkeley, H., et al., 2014. Transnational climate change governance. New York, USA:Cambridge University Press.
9. Chan, S., et al., 2015a. Reinvigorating international climate policy:a comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6 (4), 466–473. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12294
10. Chan, S., Brandi, C., and Bauer, S., 2016. Aligning transnational climate action with international climate governance:the road from Paris. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25 (2), 238–247. doi:10.1111/reel.12168
11. Chan, S., et al., 2015b. Strengthening non-state climate action:a progress assessment of climate actions launched at the 2014 climate summit in New York. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
12. Chen, H.-T., 1989. The conceptual framework of the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, Special Issue:the Theory-Driven Perspective, 12 (4), 391–396. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(89)90057-8
13. Chen, H.-T., 2006. A theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13 (1), 75–83.
14. CISL, and Ecofys, 2015. Better partnerships:understanding and increasing the impact of private sector initiatives. University of Cambridge Institute forSustainability Leadership (CISL)and Ecofys.
15. Coryn, C.L.S., et al., 2011. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32 (2), 199–226. doi:10.1177/1098214010389321
16. Diplomatie, F., 2015. Climate change - COP21 - press briefing by Laurent Fabius (New York, 29.06.15). France Diplomatie::Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development. Available from: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/climate/events/article/climate-change-cop21-press-briefing-by-laurent-fabius-new-york-29-06-15 [Accessed 29 June].
17. Dixon-Woods, M., et al., 2011. Explaining michigan:developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Quarterly, 89 (2), 167–205. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x
18. European Commission, 2009. Commission impact assessment guidelines (January 2009). SEC(2009) 92. Brussels, Belgium.
19. Falkner, R., Stephan, H., and Vogler, J., 2010. International climate policy after copenhagen:towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Global Policy, 1 (3), 252–262. doi:10.1111/gpol.2010.1.issue-3
20. GGCA, 2015. Lima-Paris Action Agenda:independent assessment report. Galvanizing the Groundswell of Climate Actions.
21. Hale, T.N., and Roger, C., 2014. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. The Review of International Organizations, 9 (1), 59–82. doi:10.1007/s11558-013-9174-0
22. Hansen, M.B., and Vedung, E., 2010. Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (3), 295–313. doi:10.1177/1098214010366174
23. Harrison, N., et al. 2014. Enhancing ambition through international cooperative initiatives. Copenhagen, DK, Nordic Council of Ministers. Available from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:713496.
24. Hoogerwerf, A., 1990. Reconstructing policy theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13 (3), 285–291. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90059-6
25. Hsu, A., et al., 2016. Track climate pledges of cities and companies. Nature, 532 (7599), 303–306. doi:10.1038/532303a
26. Hsu, A., et al., 2015. Towards a new climate diplomacy. Nature Climate Change, 5 (6), 501–503. doi:10.1038/nclimate2594
27. IISD, 2013. Summary of the Warsaw climate change conference. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12594e.pdf.
28. IISD, 2014. Climate summit bulletin:a summary report of the UN climate summit 2014. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 172 (18). Available from:http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/crsvol172num18e.pdf.
29. Leeuw, F.L., 2003. Reconstructing program theories:methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (1), 5–20. doi:10.1177/109821400302400102
30. Leeuw, F.L., and Donaldson, S.I., 2015. Theory in evaluation:reducing confusion and encouraging debate. Evaluation, 21 (4), 467–480. doi:10.1177/1356389015607712
31. Linnér, B.-O., Mickwitz, P., and Román, M., 2012. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through development policies:a framework for analysing policy interventions. Climate and Development, 4 (3), 175–186. doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.698587
32. Lister, J., Poulsen, R.T., and Ponte, S., 2015. Orchestrating transnational environmental governance in maritime shipping. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 34 (September), 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.011
33. LPAA, 2014. Lima-Paris Action Agenda:joint declaration. Available from: http://www.cop20.pe/en/18732/comunicado-sobre-la-agenda-de-accion-lima-paris/.
34. LPAA, 2015a. The Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA):briefing on the occasion of the ADP 2.10. ADP 2.10. Available from: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/media/408544/lpaa_-_briefing_at_bonn_session_-_02_sep_15.pdf.
35. LPAA, 2015b. The Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA):briefing on the occasion of the ADP 2.11. ADP 2.11. Available from: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/media/443511/lpaa-briefing-19-10-2015-bonn.pdf [Accessed 19 October].
36. Michaelowa, K., and Michaelowa, A., 2016. Transnational climate governance initiatives:designed for effective climate change mitigation? International Interactions, 0 (0), 1–27. doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1256110
37. Pegram, T., 2014. Global human rights governance and orchestration:national human rights institutions as intermediaries. European Journal of International Relations, 21 (3). 1354066114548079.
38. Rayner, S., 2010. How to eat an elephant:a bottom-up approach to climate policy. Climate Policy, 10 (6), 615–621. doi:10.3763/cpol.2010.0138
39. Rogelj, J., et al., 2016. Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature, 534 (7609), 631–639. doi:10.1038/nature18307
40. Roger, C., Hale, T., and Andonova, L., 2017. The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43 (1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1252248
41. Rogers, P.J., 2008. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14 (1), 29–48. doi:10.1177/1356389007084674
42. Rogers, P.J., 2014. Theory of Change. Methodological Briefs-Impact Evaluation No. 2. Florence, Italy, UNICEF. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/metbri/innpub747.html.
43. Rogers, P.J., et al., 2000. Program theory evaluation:practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 2000 (87), 5–13. doi:10.1002/ev.1177
44. Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., and Freeman, H.E., 2004. Evaluation:a systematic approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage publications. Available from: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en‎&id=QF9WBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evaluation+rossi&ots=9zs70DgRz5&sig=FfEaWTKqtxTh4fhJFIEvzZtMUtA.
45. Sanderson, I., 2000. Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6 (4), 433–454. doi:10.1177/13563890022209415
46. Schleifer, P., 2013. Orchestrating sustainability:the case of european union biofuel governance. Regulation & Governance, 7 (4), 533–546. doi:10.1111/rego.12037
47. Stachowiak, S., 2013. Pathways for change:6 theories about how policy change happens. Seattle, US, Organizational Research Services. Available from: http://www.organizationalresearch.com/publicationsandresources/pathways_for_change_6_theories_about_how_policy_change_happens.pdf.
48. Stame, N., 2004. Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10 (1), 58–76. doi:10.1177/1356389004043135
49. UN, 2014. Abu dhabi ascent:guidebook. Available from: http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/ASC_Brochure_13-May-2014_latest.pdf.
50. UNEP, 2010. The emission gap reports:are the copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2° C or 1.5° C? Nairobi, Kenya:United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
51. UNEP, 2014. The emission gap report 2014. Nairobi, Kenya:United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
52. UNEP, 2015a. Climate commitments of subnational actors and business:a quantitative assessment of their emission reduction impact. Nairobi, Kenya:United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
53. UNEP, 2015b. The emissions gap report 2015–executive summary. Nairobi, Kenya.
54. UNFCCC, 2011. Establishment of an Ad Hoc working group on the durban platform for enhanced action. Vol. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.
55. UNFCCC, 2013. Compilation of information on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives and options to enhance mitigation ambition. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, Technical Paper FCCC/TP/2013/4.
56. UNFCCC, 2014. Compilation of information on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives and options to enhance mitigation action:list of selected cooperative initiatives. Compilation of Information on Mitigation Benefits of Actions, Initiatives and Options to Enhance Mitigation Action:list of Selected Cooperative Initiatives. Available from: http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_jun_2013/items/7655.php.
57. UNFCCC, 2015. UNFCCC webcast - Lima Paris Action Agenda (LPAA) - wrap-up briefing. Available from: http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-09-12-30-lima-paris-action-agenda-lpaa-wrap-up-briefing.
58. Vedung, E., 1997. Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, New Jersey:Transaction.
59. Weiss, C.H., 1995. Nothing as practical as good theory:exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In:C.H., Weiss, A.C., Kubisch, L.B., Schorr, and J.I., Connell, eds. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives:concepts, methods, and contexts. New York, USA:The Aspen Institute, Vol. 1, 65–92. Available from:https://www.seachangecop.org/sites/default/files/documents/1995%20Aspen%20New%20Approaches%20to%20Evaluating%20Community%20Initiatives.pdf#page=83.
60. Widerberg, O., and Pattberg, P., 2015a. Companies in cooperative initiatives:harnessing non-state climate action beyond Paris. Stockholm, Sweden:FORES.
61. Widerberg, O., and Pattberg, P., 2015b. International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance:raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC? Global Policy, 6 (1), 45–56. doi:10.1111/gpol.2015.6.issue-1
62. Widerberg, O., Pattberg, P., and Kristensen, K., 2016. Mapping the institutional architecture of global climate change governance - V.2. Technical Paper. Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM). Available from:http://fragmentation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Technical-report-Climate-change-R16-02-FINAL.pdf.
63. Widerberg, O., and Stripple, J., 2016. The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization:a review of five databases. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 7 (4), 486–500. doi:10.1002/wcc.2016.7.issue-4