Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change

Abstract

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 a target to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels1. Meanwhile, other forums, such as the G20 and subnational forums, have increasingly become sites of climate change initiatives2,3,4,5,6. There has, however, so far been no systematic evaluation of what forums climate change policymakers and practitioners perceive to be needed 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 alternative to the UNFCCC emerges. Our results highlight difficulties in coordinating global climate policy in a highly fragmented governance landscape.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Jordan, A. et al. Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Clim. Policy 13, 751–769 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Polit. 9, 7–23 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Bulkeley, H. et al. Transnational Climate Change Governance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Kim, J. & Chung, S-Y. The role of the G20 in governing the climate change regime. Int. Environ. Agreements 12, 361–374 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Weischer, L., Morgan, J. & Patel, M. Climate clubs: Can small groups of countries make a big difference in addressing climate change? Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 21, 177–192 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. & McGee, J. Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 13, 56–78 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Falkner, R., Stephan, H. & Vogler, J. International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Glob. Policy 1, 252–262 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Eckersley, R. Moving forward in the climate negotiations: Multilateralism or minilateralism? Glob. Environ. Polit. 12, 24–42 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Naim, M. Minilateralism: The magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy 173, 135–136 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Grasso, M. & Roberts, T. A compromise to break the climate impasse. Nature Clim. Change 4, 543–549 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Victor, D. Plan B for Copenhagen. Nature 461, 342–344 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hare, W., Stockwell, C., Flachsland, C. & Oberthür, S. The architecture of the global climate regime: A top-down perspective. Clim. Policy 10, 600–614 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Winkler, H. & Beaumont, J. Fair and effective multilateralism in the post-Copenhagen climate negotiations. Clim. Policy 10, 638–654 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Cole, D. H. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Clim. Change 5, 114–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Rayner, S. How to eat an elephant: A bottom-up approach to climate policy. Clim. Policy 10, 615–621 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Dai, X. Global regime and national change. Clim. Policy 10, 622–637 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Abbott, K. W. The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environ. Plan. C 30, 571–590 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Zürn, M. & Faude, B. Commentary: On fragmentation, differentiation, and coordination. Glob. Environ. Polit. 13, 119–130 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Bäckstrand, K. Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Glob. Environ. Polit. 8, 74–102 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H. & Zelli, F. The fragmentation of global governance achitectures: A framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9, 14–40 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    McGee, J. & Taplin, R. The Asia-Pacific partnership and market-liberal discourse in global climate governance. Int. J. Law Context 10, 338–356 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Huang, J. A Leadership of Twenty (L20) Within the UNFCCC: Establishing a legitimate and effective regime to improve our climate system. Glob. Gov. 15, 435–441 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    NAZCA: Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (UNFCCC, accessed 12 May 2015); http://climateaction.unfccc.int

  24. 24

    International Cooperative Initiatives Database (UNFCCC, accessed 12 May 2015); http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7907.php

  25. 25

    Betzold, C. Responsiveness or influence? Whom to lobby in international climate change negotiations. Int. Negot. 19, 35–61 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Böhmelt, T., Koubi, V. & Bernauer, T. Civil society participation in global governance: Insights from climate politics. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 53, 18–36 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Parker, C., Karlsson, C., Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B-O. Fragmented climate change leadership: Making sense of the ambiguous outcome of COP-15. Environ. Polit. 21, 268–286 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M. & Buhr, K. Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations. Ecol. Econ. 105, 177–184 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Linnér, B-O. & Pahuja, N. A registry for nationally appropriate mitigation actions: Goals, outcomes and institutional requisites. Ambio 41, 56–67 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Friman, M. & Hjerpe, M. Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations. Clim. Policy 15, 302–320 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B-O. The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: Understanding agency through governance profiles. Int. Environ. Agreements http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9243-8 (2014)

  32. 32

    Buhr, K., Roth, S. & Stigson, P. Climate change politics through a global pledge-and-review regime: Positions among negotiators and stakeholders. Sustainability 6, 794–811 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Buhr, K. & Hjerpe, M. Expectations on corporate climate action under regulatory uncertainty. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 4, 403–419 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    List of Participants, Conference of the Parties, Nineteenth Session (UNFCCC, accessed 12 May 2015); http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/inf04.pdf

  35. 35

    List of Participants, Conference of the Parties, Twentieth Session (UNFCCC, accessed 12 May 2015); http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/misc01p01.pdf

  36. 36

    Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B-O. Functions of COP side-events in climate-change governance. Clim. Policy 10, 167–180 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank D. Bastviken, M. Fridahl, B-O. Linnér and H. Schroeder for valuable suggestions on a previous draft, colleagues in the International Negotiations Survey team who assisted in handing out surveys during COP 19 and COP 20, the Swedish Research Council, under grant award No. 421-2011-1862, and Formas, under grant award No. 2011-779.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.H. and N.N. jointly designed the study, developed the methodology, performed the analysis, and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattias Hjerpe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hjerpe, M., Nasiritousi, N. Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change. Nature Clim Change 5, 864–867 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2684

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing