Global Climate Governance between State and Non-State Actors: Dynamics of Contestation and Re-Legitimation

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: Özel Sayı, 59 - 79, 08.12.2020

Bengü Aydın Dikmen

https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.763831

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Global climate governance is one of the most complex global governance systems that is also ridden with
divergent interests of states and non-state actors. Since the 2000s, the authority of UN-led global climate
governance has been contested by the states declining their mitigation targets of the Kyoto Protocol and by
those that find the international climate negotiations inefficient to ramp up climate action. These divergent
views of states resulted in the counter-institutionalization apparent in the proliferation of minilateral
forums and hybrid coalitions of climate initiatives oftentimes bringing states and non-state actors together.
These non-UNFCCC partnerships have functioned to be strategic actions that put pressure on the global
climate governance system to re-legitimate itself. Meanwhile, transnational actors have also contested the
same system demanding a deeper cooperation that will keep the temperature goal below 2 degrees. This
study argues that with its new mode of governance named hybrid multilateralism, the Paris Agreement
was actually an institutional adaptation to the contestations by states and non-state actors in the forms
of counter-institutionalization and politicization. It also discusses the problematic sides of the functions
that non-state actors are expected to provide in this new governance mode. This paper is composed of
four parts: firstly, the theoretical background that feeds into the analysis of empirical data with regard to
global climate governance will be presented. Secondly, beginning from the Rio Conference, milestone
developments in global climate governance will be examined by taking the contestation by the states into
consideration. In the third part, the process of the politicization of climate change in which transnational
actors and specifically the climate change movement demanded more decisive climate action will be
explicated. In the last part, the existing legitimacy deficits with regard to non-state actors in post-Paris
climate governance will be elaborated.

Keywords

global climate governance, Paris Agreement, legitimacy, non-state actors, civil society

Devlet ve Devlet-dışı Aktörler arasında Küresel İklim Yönetişimi: Çekişme ve Yeniden Meşrulaştırma Dinamikleri

Abstract

Küresel iklim yönetişimi, devlet ve devlet-dışı aktörlerin farklı çıkarlarıyla dolu en karmaşık küresel yönetişim sistemlerinden biridir. 2000’lerden beri BM liderliğindeki küresel iklim yönetişiminin otoritesi, Kyoto Protokolü’nden gelen azaltım hedeflerini reddeden devletler ve uluslararası iklim müzakerelerini iklim eylemini geliştirmek için yetersiz bulan devletlerce sorgulandı. Devletlerin bu
farklı görüşleri, minilateralist forumlar ve sıklıkla devlet ve devlet-dışı aktörleri bir araya getiren melez
koalisyonların meydana getirdiği iklim inisiyatiflerinin artışında görülebilen bir karşı-kurumsallaşmayla
sonuçlandı. Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçevesi (BMİDÇ)-dışı bu ortaklıklar, kendini
yeniden meşrulaştırması için küresel iklim yönetişim sisteminin üstünde baskı kuran stratejik eylemler
olma işlevi gördü. Diğer yandan, ulusötesi aktörler de ısınma artışını 2 derecenin altında tutacak
daha derin işbirlikleri talep ederek bu sistemi zorladı. Bu çalışma, hibrit çoktaraflılık adındaki yeni
bir yönetişim moduyla Paris Anlaşması’nın, aslında devlet ve devlet-dışı aktörleri tarafından ortaya
konan karşı-kurumsallaşma ve politikleştirme şekillerindeki çekişmelere kurumsal bir adaptasyon
olduğunu savunmaktadır. Ayrıca yeni yönetişim itibariyle devlet-dışı aktörlerden beklenen işlevlerin
sorunlu yanlarını tartışmaktadır. Makale dört bölümden oluşmaktadır: öncelikle, küresel iklim
yönetişimine dair ampirik verinin analizini besleyen teorik arka plan sunulacaktır. İkinci olarak,
Rio Konferansı’ndan başlayarak küresel iklim yönetişiminin dönüm noktası niteliğindeki gelişmeler
devletlerin meydan okumaları dikkate alınarak incelenecektir. Üçüncü bölümde, ulusötesi aktörlerin
ve özellikle de iklim değişikliği hareketinin daha kararlı bir iklim eylemi talep ederek iklim değişikliğini
politikleştirme süreçleri anlatılacaktır. Son bölümde, Paris-sonrası iklim yönetişiminde devlet-dışı
aktörleri ilgilendiren meşruiyet sorunları ele alınacaktır.

Keywords

küresel iklim yönetişimi, Paris Anlaşması, meşruiyet, devlet-dışı aktörler, sivil toplum

References

• Allan, J. I. (2018). Seeking Entry: Discursive Hooks and NGOs in Global Climate Politics. Global Policy, 9(4), 560–569. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12586
• Atkin, E. (2019). The corporate takeover of COP25. Heated, December 11. Retrieved on 1 July 2020 from: https://bit.ly/3eX95oD
• Aykut, S.C., d’Amico, E., Klenke, J. and Schenuit, F. (2020a). The Accountant, the Admonisher, and the Animator: Global Climate Governance in Transition. Report from the COP25 climate summit in Madrid. CSS Working Paper Series No.1: Center for Sustainable Society Research, Universität Hamburg.
• Aykut, S. C., Morena, E., & Foyer, J. (2020b). ‘Incantatory’ governance: global climate politics’ performative turn and its wider significance for global politics. International Politics, 1-22. DOI: 10.1057/s41311-020-00250-8
• Bäckstrand, K. and Lövbrand, E. (2016). The Road to Paris: Contending Climate Governance Discourses in the Post-Copenhagen Era, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21:5, 519-532. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150777
• Bäckstrand, K., and Kuyper, J. W. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: the UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 764-788.
• Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O., & Lövbrand, E. (2017). Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 561-579.
• Beeson, M. (2019). Environmental Populism: The Politics of Survival in the Anthropocene, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
• Bernauer, T., and Gampfer, R. (2013). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439-449. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.001
• Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: a Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14.
• Cahill-Webb, F. (2018). International environmental governance and the Paris agreement on climate change: The adoption of the "pledge and review" governance approach. IPE Working Papers 99/2018, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
• Chan, S., van Asselt, H., Hale,T., Abbot, K.W., Beisheim, M., Hoffmann, M., … & Widerberg, O. (2015). Reinvigorating International Climate Policy: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Nonstate Action. Global Policy 6(4). DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12294
• 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
• Chan, S., Boran, I., van Asselt, H., Iacobuta, G., Niles, N., Rietig, K., ... and Eichhorn, F. (2019). Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and sustainability governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(3), e572. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.572
• Climate Action, data retrieved on 20 June 2020, from https://climateaction.unfccc.int/
• de Moor, Uba, J.K., Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M., and De Vydt, M. (eds.) (2020). Protest for a future II: Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays For Future climate protests on 20-27 September, 2019, in 19 cities around the world. Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: https://bit.ly/2VI3URT
• de Moor, J., and Wahlström, M. (2019). Narrating political opportunities: explaining strategic adaptation in the climate movement, Theory and Society, 48(3), 419-451. DOI: 10.1007/s11186-019-09347-3
• Fisher, D. R. (2010). COP-15 in Copenhagen: How the Merging of Movements Left Civil Society Out in the Cold. Global Environmental Politics 10(2): 11-17.
• Gupta, A., and Mason, M. (2016) Disclosing or obscuring? the politics of transparency in climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18, 82-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.11.004
• Hadden, J. (2015). Networks in contention. The divisive politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hale, T. (2016). “All hands on deck”: the Paris agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12-22. DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00362
• Held, D., and Roger, C. (2018). Three models of global climate governance: From Kyoto to Paris and beyond. Global Policy, 9(4), 527-537. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12617
• Hickmann, T. (2017). The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. International Studies Review, 19(3), 430-451. DOI: 10.1093/isr/vix037
• Hickmann, T., Widerberg, O., Lederer, M., Pattberg, P. (2019). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0(0) 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/0020852319840425
• Hofferberth, M. and Lambach, D. (2018). It’s The End of the World As We Know It. World Politics and Climate Governance in a Post-Governance World. Conference paper prepared for the DVPW-Kongress 2018, 25-28 September, Frankfurt. Available at: https://bit.ly/2Zxr4LL
• Hsu, A., Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T., Roelfsema, M., Weinfurter, A., Xie, Y., ... & Faria, P. (2019). A research roadmap for quantifying non-state and subnational climate mitigation action. Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 11-17. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0338-z
• Jacobs, M. (2016). High pressure for low emissions: How civil society created the Paris climate agreement. Juncture, 22(4), 314-323.
• Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56-78. DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00183
• Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O., and Schroeder, H. (2018). Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1), e497. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.497
• Nasiritousi, N. (2017). Fossil fuel emitters and climate change: unpacking the governance activities of large oil and gas companies. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 621-647.
• Nasiritousi, N. and Bäckstrand, K. (2019). International climate politics in the post-Paris era, in Climate Policies in the Nordics: Nordic Economic Policy Review. Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers, 21-50. DOI: 10.6027/Nord2019-012
• Orr, S. K. (2016). Institutional Control and Climate Change Activism at COP 21 in Paris. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 23–30. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00363
• Pekkarinen, V., Toussaint, P. and van Asselt, H. (2019). Loss and damage after Paris: moving beyond rhetoric, Carbon and climate law review: CCLR, 13(1), 31-49 DOI. 10.21552/cclr/2019/1/6
• Reitan, R. and Gibson, S. (2012). Climate Change or Social Change? Environmental and Leftist Praxis and Participatory Action Research. Globalizations, 9:3, 395-410. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2012.680735
• Rowan, S. (2019). Participation and cooperation in global climate governance [PhD thesis]. University of Oxford.
• Schinko, T. (2020). Overcoming political climate-change apathy in the era of #FridaysForFuture. One Earth, 2(1), 20-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.012
• Streck, C., von Unger, M., and Greiner, S. (2020). COP 25: Losing Sight of (Raising) Ambition. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 17(2), 136-160. doi:10.1163/18obe760104-01702003
• United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705. Retrieved from: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
• Van Asselt, H., Huitema, D., and Jordan, A. (2018). Global Climate Governance after Paris. In B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, & F. Berkhout (Eds.), Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments (pp. 27-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/9781108277679.003
• Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M. and Rootes, C. (2013). “Framing ‘the Climate Issue’: Patterns of Participation and Prognostic Frames among Climate Summit Protesters.” Global Environmental Politics 13(4):101–22. DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00200
• Wahlström, M., and de Moor, J. (2017). Governing dissent in a state of emergency: police and protester interactions in the global space of the COP. In (eds.) Cassegard, C., Soneryd, L., Thorn, H., Wettergren, A., Climate Action in a Globalizing World: Comparative Perspectives on Environmental Movements in the Global North, 27-57.
• Wahlström, M., Kocyba, P., De Vydt, M., and de Moor, J. (eds.) (2019). Protest for a future: Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays For Future climate protests on 15 March, 2019 in 13 European cities, Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: https://bit.ly/2YTn6xU
• Widerberg, O. (2017). The ‘Black Box’ problem of orchestration: how to evaluate the performance of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 715-737. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1319660
• Widerberg, O. and Pattberg, P. (2017). Accountability challenges in the transnational regime complex for climate change. Review of Policy Research, 34(1), 68-87. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12217
• Zürn, M. (2018a) A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy and Contestation. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Zürn, M. (2018b). Contested Global Governance. Global Policy, 9(1), 138-145. DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12521