Aligning Transnational Climate Action with International Climate Governance: The Road from Paris

• Author: Steffen Bauer,Sander Chan,Clara Brandi
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12168

Aligning Transnational Climate Action with

International Climate Governance: The Road

from Paris

Sander Chan,* Clara Brandi and Steffen Bauer

Transnational climate actions have come to constitute

a distinguishable sphere of climate governance.

Ref‌lecting on the Paris outcome, this article discusses

the role of non-State and subnational actors –espe-

cially on the road to the Paris climate change confer-

ence. It argues that the intergovernmental and

transnational spheres of global climate governance

could mutually reinforce each other by continuing

mobilization efforts to engage non-State actors and by

harnessing greater ambition, both from State and

non-State actors. For such mutual reinforcement to

take effect, however, the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change should engage non-

State actors consistently and systematically. The arti-

cle also argues that the Paris outcome and, above all,

the building blocks that are part of the decision on

enhancing pre-2020 action, constitute the most com-

prehensive framework of non-State engagement yet,

offering a promising basis for mutual reinforcement

of the intergovernmental and transnational spheres of

global climate governance.

INTRODUCTION

Climate governance has become increasingly complex.

For instance, regulatory instruments have become sup-

plemented by market-based solutions and ‘f‌lexible

mechanisms’following their inclusion in the 1997 Kyoto

Protocol.

1

The proliferation of highly specialized inter-

national institutions addressing climate change has

resulted in considerable institutional fragmentation.

2

Moreover, there is a growing recognition that climate

change as an encompassing issue is ultimately about

sustainable development, requiring action across many

sectors, including energy, trade, transport and agricul-

ture.

3

Underpinning these developments is the emer-

gence of a multiplicity of non-State and subnational

climate actions involving transnational actors.

4

Taking

the form of partnerships, networks and clubs aimed at

mitigation as well as adaptation and climate-resilient

development, these transnational actions arguably con-

stitute a distinguishable sphere of global climate govern-

ance that transcends the formal intergovernmental

negotiations under the United Nations Framework Con-

vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While some

scholars see fragmentation and polycentric approaches

as preferable over more coherent (top-down) monocen-

tric modes of governance,

5

others have pointed to the

merits of closer integration of non-State and subnational

actors into the UNFCCC framework.

6

On the one hand,

transnational actions could provide the necessary sup-

plementary contributions to governmental efforts, as

governments are still unable to offer combined mitiga-

tion contributions to set the world on track towards the

internationally agreed objective to hold ‘the increase in

the global average temperature to well below 2 °Cabove

pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the

temperature increase to 1.5 °Cabovepre-industrial

levels’.

7

Some even suggest that as few as 21 targeted

non-State and subnational actions could help close the

* Corresponding author.

Email: sander.chan@die-gdi.de

1

See, e.g., H. Bulkeley and P. Newell, Governing Climate Change

(Routledge, 2010); and P. Newell and M. Paterson, Climate Capital-

ism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy

(Cambridge University Press, 2010).

2

See F. Zelli, ‘The Fragmentation of the Global Climate Governance

Architecture’, 2:2 WIREs Climate Change (2011), 255; F. Zelli and H.

van Asselt, ‘The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental

Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses’, 13:3 Global

Environmental Politics (2013), 1; H. van Asselt, The Fragmentation of

Global Climate Governance: Consequences and Management of

Regime Interactions (Edward Elgar, 2014).

3

See M. Parry, ‘Climate Change is a Development Issue, and only

Sustainable Development Can Confront the Challenge’, 1:1 Climate

and Development (2009), 5; S. Bauer, ‘It’s About Development,

Stupid!International Climate Policy in a Changing World’, 12:2 Global

Environmental Politics (2012), 110.

4

See L.B. Andonova, M.M. Betsill and H. Bulkeley, ‘Transnational Cli-

mate Governance’, 9:2 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 52;

H. Bulkeley et al.,Transnational Climate Change Governance

(Cambridge University Press, 2014).

5

See D.H. Cole, ‘Advantages of a Polycentric Approach to Climate

Change Policy’, 5:2 Nature Climate Change (2015), 114; see also S.

Rayner, ‘How to Eat an Elephant: A Bottom-up Approach to Climate

Policy’, 10:6 Climate Policy (2010), 615.

6

See S. Chan and P. Pauw, A Global Framework for Climate Action:

Orchestrating Non-State and Subnational Initiatives for more Effective

Global Climate Governance (German Development Institute/

Deutsches Institut f€

ur Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), 2014).

7

Paris Agreement (Paris, 12 December 2015; not yet in force), Article

2.1(a).

ª2016 The Authors. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,

distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

238

RECIEL 25 (2) 2016. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12168

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law