After a decade of negotiation, countries adopted a new, legally binding agreement on climate change. Excitement for a new era in the climate regime is palpable among pundits and policy makers alike. But such enthusiasm largely overlooks that most of the Paris Agreement’s provisions represent continuity with existing climate policy, not a break with the past. This forum argues that the Paris Agreement is a dangerous form of incrementalism in two ways. First, it repackages existing rules that have already proven inadequate to reduce emissions and improve resilience. Second, state and nonstate actors celebrate the Agreement as a solution, conferring legitimacy on its rules; I suggest that, beyond the strong desire to avoid failure, developing countries and nongovernmental organizations accepted the Paris Agreement to secure the participation of the United States and to uphold previous agreements. Given the reification of existing rules, the ratchet-up mechanism and nonstate actors offer the last remaining hopes in global efforts to catalyze climate action on a scale necessary to safeguard the climate.
Today's global climate movement is substantial and diverse. In the mid‐2000s, an influx of activists and organizations advancing social issues, such as gender, labor, justice, development and indigenous rights (to name a few) arrived at the UN climate negotiations, fragmenting civil society. I argue that, in part, the rise of these ‘new’ climate activists can be explained by the ongoing negotiations for a legally binding treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which added new issues that became ‘discursive hooks’ for NGOs’ claims to belonging in the climate regime. Linking to a specific institution had two effects: it served as an entry point to frame climate issues as social issues; and it helped NGOs carve a niche in climate policy in which they were authorities. In the Paris regime, this history matters, as some NGOs will fare better under the new rules than others. First, those established in institutions enshrined in the Paris Agreement will continue to have a foothold in the regime. Second, those that built their authority on their expertise or their capacity to deliver mitigation results may find more opportunities than those making moral claims.
After a decade-long search, countries finally agreed on a new climate treaty in 2015. The Paris Agreement has attracted attention both for overcoming years of gridlock and for its novel features. Here, we build on accounts explaining why states reached agreement, arguing that a deeper understanding requires a focus on institutional design. Ultimately, it was this agreement, with its specific provisions, that proved acceptable to states rather than other possible outcomes. Our account is multi-causal and draws methodological inspiration from the public policy and causes of war literatures. Specifically, we distinguish between background, intermediate, and proximate conditions and identify how they relate to one another, jointly producing the ultimate outcome we observe. Our analysis focuses especially on the role of scientific knowledge, non-state actor mobilization, institutional legacies, bargaining, and coalition-building in the final push for agreement. This case-based approach helps to understand the origins of Paris, but also offers a unique, historically grounded way to examine questions of institutional design.
Conceptual innovations are a central feature of global environmental governance. Confronting degradation and unsustainability, scholars and practitioners turn to new concepts to identify, make sense of, and chart new directions towards meaningful governance solutions. But why do some concepts create lasting changes to governance institutions and governance practices, while others do not? Ideational theories of international relations highlight the importance of normative fit. In this paper we analysis the concept of ecosystem services to show that normative fit is just one dimension of governance fitness, which also includes practical fitness. Ecologists and economists coined the concept of ecosystem services to make biodiversity conservation intelligible to decision-makers versed in economic thinking. It has gained rhetorical traction, but ultimately failed to change how we treat nature because it lacks practical fitness. We interviewed fifty-six individuals working in twelve international organizations that have sought to translate the concept of ecosystem services into practice. Our analysis reveals forces limiting practical fit and constraining institutional uptake at three levels of analysis: structural, organizational, and agent. We present a cautionary tale that pushes scholars to carefully consider practical fit alongside normative fit when suggesting new concepts as organizing frames for how we govern global environmental challenges.
No abstract
The idea that nature functions in ways that benefit humans -by cleaning the air, providing food, and buffering against disasters, to name a few -has a long lineage in conservation sciences. But conceptualising these functions in terms of 'services' and linking them to the language of markets and valuation is relatively new in international policy making circles. The concept of 'ecosystem services' is based on the idea that by valuing nature it may be easier to preserve while simultaneously providing for human needs, desires and wants. It entered mainstream international discourse with the launch of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in the mid-2000s, followed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), which gave the concept a firm economic grounding. International initiatives focused on ecosystem services have since grown enormously, drawing in public and, eventually, private actors. If the concept of ecosystem services were to be fully implemented and adopted, policy makers and planners would: recognize the multiple ways in which nature supports human wellbeing and economic development; measure the value of these functions; and integrate those values into decision making processes. By thinking about nature in economic terms, the concept promises to make
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.