Introduction: Climate Governance After Paris
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12616 |
| Author | Charles Roger,David Held |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
Introduction: Climate Governance After Paris
David Held
Durham University and Global Policy Institute
Charles Roger
Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals
The global climate change regime has evolved in a com-
plex fashion since the ‘Earth Summit’in 1992, forming a
mosaic of interconnected and partially overlapping inter-
governmental, transnational and domestic initiatives. For
most of this period, states engaged in intergovernmental
policy making under the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and formed a variety
of climate clubs amongst themselves. Domestic climate
policy making advanced as well, in both developed and
developing states (Harrison and Sundstrom, 2010; Held
et al., 2012). At the same time, a host of transnational cli-
mate governance initiatives, involving an array of non-state
and sub-state actors, has entered the scene (Andonova
et al., 2017; Bulkeley et al., 2014; Roger et al., 2017). Many
of these new initiatives show considerable promise for mit-
igating global carbon emissions and thereby moving the
world towards the 1.5–2°C goal set by policy makers. Fur-
thermore, after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement,
states produced a new governance arrangement that aims
to catalyze, facilitate and review national efforts, and rec-
ognizes the important role that non-state and sub-state
actors will play in the climate politics of the future (Fal-
kner, 2016).
In this context, successful governance of climate change
rests on the ability of these diverse components of the cli-
mate regime to develop reinforcing relationships that can
enhance the ambition and effectiveness of each element.
Yet, at present, our understanding of these linkages remains
limited. This special section of Global Policy, which builds
on an INOGOV-funded workshop hosted at Durham Univer-
sity on 22–24 March 2017, aims to explore some of the
new roles that different actors have been playing in the
post-Paris climate regime, the promise that they hold, and
the different possibilities that exist for ensuring that this
promise is fulfilled. It includes four articles. The first, our
own, explores the Paris ‘model’itself, contrasting it with
two earlier approaches associated with the Kyoto Protocol
and the Copenhagen Accord (Held and Roger, 2018). By
highlighting the different features of each model, we seek
to cast the uniqueness of the Paris approach in sharp relief.
We argue that understanding the Paris model and, espe-
cially, how it is likely to shape global climate politics in the
future, requires a more textured account of its key elements
than many more ‘reductive’accounts (which seek to distill
the essence of the Paris Agreement and reveal its ‘bottom
up’character or legal ‘hybridity’) have offered thus far. We
also argue that the success of the Paris agreement will
likely depend on the development of a dynamic gover-
nance ecosystem in the climate arena, where the different
components of the regime work together in a synergistic
fashion.
The remaining articles explore the main components of
this model that we think are most of interest to scholars
and policy makers. The first, by Jane Lister, investigates the
role of businesses and private transnational regulations,
which have increasingly been seen as having considerable
promise for addressing climate change. She argues, how-
ever, that their potential is more limited than some have
thought. While there is a business rationale underpinning
such schemes and the possibility for them to contribute
more to the governance of climate change, they are unli-
kely to have the kind of impact that is needed from a
broader ecological perspective –at least on their own. Both
direct and indirect regulation by public actors is essential
for increasing their ambition and bringing these initiatives
to scale. The third article, by Emelia Smeds and Michele
Acuto, examines the role of cities. It unpacks the concept of
urban climate change ‘experimentation’and assesses their
contribution in the post-Paris era. They argue that cities do
have considerable transformative potential but, like busi-
nesses, face challenges when it comes to ‘scaling up’and
diversifying the kinds of experimentation they engage in.
Finally, Jen Iris Allan focuses on the changing role of civil
society groups after Paris. She argues that, under the
UNFCCC, their ability to participate in and influence the cli-
mate negotiations has depended on their ability to exploit
‘discursive hooks’presented by prevailing policies. These
have changed over the course of the negotiations and can
partially account for the shifting patterns of engagement
we see. Under Paris, policies are changing yet again, and
successful involvement with the UNFCCC process will
require a reorientation in the approach taken by such
groups.
The Paris framework creates a set of principles, rules and
mechanisms that might well generate the new solutions
and policies that climate governance so badly requires if we
Global Policy (2018) 9:4 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12616 ©2018 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 9 . Issue 4 . November 2018 525
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial