Architectures of Earth System Governance

Biermann, Frank

doi:10.1017/9781108784641.001

Cited by 27 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 155 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the literature mostly puts emphasis on how treaties evolve through the will (or lack thereof) of the contracting parties (Sand 1997 ; Gehring 2007 ; Bodansky and Diringer 2010 ; Brunnée 2012 ; Bodansky and Rajamani 2013 ), our study has found that treaty evolution is a much more multifaceted process than one would expect. We find that treaty evolution is heavily influenced by both internal and external actors with which central treaty bodies interact (Biermann and Siebenhüner 2009 ; Jinnah 2014 ), or more broadly by the institutional environment in which a treaty operates (Biermann and Kim 2020 ; Abbott et al 2016 ; Kim and Morin 2021 ; Kim 2020). In explaining treaty evolution, it is then important to look beyond the politics of member states, and to the constellation of actors and interests in and around the convention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

50 Years on, w(h)ither the Ramsar convention? A case of institutional drift

Bridgewater

2021

Biodivers Conserv

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetlands have declined in area and quality at an accelerating pace in the last 50 years. Yet, the last 50 years is when international attention has been focussed on wetlands through the Ramsar Convention. An analysis of how the convention has evolved over the past 50 years suggests it has been drifting away from its original mandate in a maladaptive manner, and this drift is a problem for achieving its original objectives. A review of the strategic plans of the convention revealed two key conditions for institutional drifting and the associated lack of success. The first condition lies in its unique situation as a non-UN convention, which reduces the convention’s visibility and interactivity with other biodiversity-related conventions, agencies, or programmes. The second condition is an increasing number of conventions dealing with biodiversity issues, all forcing the Ramsar Convention to seek different roles in an increasingly competitive institutional landscape. A more effective future for the convention arguably lies in reasserting its original mandate, but with cognisance of the changed environmental pressures of the twenty-first century. While this would narrow its increasingly broad focus, such a reorientation will allow wetlands and waterfowl to start a track to recovery, backed by active and focused Contracting Parties in a renewed international convention on wetland conservation, management, and sustainable use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

50 Years on, w(h)ither the Ramsar convention? A case of institutional drift

Bridgewater

2021

Biodivers Conserv

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The underlying conviction of these scholars is that international institutions do not exist in a void, and cannot be analyzed without considering the complex web they operate within, which has become referred to as governance architectures. 7,8,9,10 A governance architecture is an overarching system consisting of building blocks (such as international institutions/regimes, transnational institutions, and networks), structural features (for example interlinkages between institutions, regime complexes, and degrees of fragmentation), and policy responses. 11 This article zooms in on one of the structural features -a regime complex 12 which is understood as: "a network of three or more international regimes that relate to a common subject matter; exhibit overlapping membership; and generate substantive, normative, or operative interactions recognized as potentially problematic whether or not they are managed effectively".…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,8,9,10 A governance architecture is an overarching system consisting of building blocks (such as international institutions/regimes, transnational institutions, and networks), structural features (for example interlinkages between institutions, regime complexes, and degrees of fragmentation), and policy responses. 11 This article zooms in on one of the structural features -a regime complex 12 which is understood as: "a network of three or more international regimes that relate to a common subject matter; exhibit overlapping membership; and generate substantive, normative, or operative interactions recognized as potentially problematic whether or not they are managed effectively". 13 From this, a regime complex can be usefully conceptualized as an open system that is held together enough to be recognizable, but which is not completely detached from the rest of global governance.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exponential Growth and New Agendas – a Comprehensive Review of the Arctic Conference Sphere

Steinveg

2021

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Arctic region has attracted the interest of Arctic and non-Arctic states, as well as non-state actors, for decades. Corresponding with the growing attraction towards the region, the number of conferences attending to Arctic issues has expanded. This article provides an historical mapping of the Arctic conference sphere, and demonstrates how the establishment of Arctic conferences has both paralleled central events in Arctic affairs and can be linked to important international developments. Firstly, there is a notable peak conforming with the “second state change” in 2005, brought about by developments opening the Arctic to global concerns: the impacts of climate change and the spread of the socio-economic effects from globalization to the Arctic. Secondly, the expanding number of conferences around 2013 can be seen in relation to the growing interest in the region from non-Arctic states. As such, this article builds the argument for conferences as a central element within the Arctic governance architecture, creating linkages among units in the regime complex. The article devotes particular attention towards the two largest international conferences on Arctic issues – Arctic Frontiers and Arctic Circle Assembly – to illustrate how the necessity for hybrid policy-science-business conferences arose from a more complex governance system, and challenges requiring cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary, and international collaboration.

show abstract

“…Based on the concept of a "governance architecture" where multiple organizations, regimes, and norms regulate action (see Biermann & Kim, 2020), we understand governance of carbon markets to encompass the institutional features to oversee a carbon market (e.g., institutional design principles and their material expressions, such as methodologies to determine credits) and agency by different actor types, including in decision-making processes. Governance can be exerted by public or private entities, as well as hybrid variations (see Green, 2013Green, , 2016Mehling, 2019) and can change over time.…”

Section: Governance Dimensions For Baseline-and-credit Carbon Market ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance of Fragmented Compliance and Voluntary Carbon Markets Under the Paris Agreement

Ahonen

Kessler

Michaelowa

et al. 2022

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, the emergence of multiple carbon market segments has led to fragmentation of governance of international carbon markets. International baseline-and-credit systems for greenhouse gas mitigation have been repeatedly expected to wither away, but show significant resilience. Still, Parties to the Paris Agreement have struggled to finalize rules for market-based cooperation under Article 6, which are still being negotiated. Generally, there is tension between international top-down and bottom-up governance. The former was pioneered through the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and is likely to be utilized for the Article 6.4 mechanism, while the latter was used for the first track of Joint Implementation and will be applied for Article 6.2. Voluntary carbon markets governed bottom-up and outside the Kyoto Protocol by private institutions have recently gained importance by offering complementary project types and methodological approaches. The clear intention of some Parties to use market-based cooperation in order to reach their nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement have led to an ongoing process of navigating the alignment of these fragmented carbon market instruments with the implementation of nationally determined contributions and Paris Agreement’s governance architecture. We discuss emerging features of international carbon market governance in the public and private domain, including political and technical issues. Fragmented governance is characterized by different degrees of transparency, centralization, and scales. We assess the crunch issues in the Article 6 negotiations through the lens of these governance features and their effectiveness, focusing on governance principles and their operationalization to ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting.

show abstract

Architectures of Earth System Governance

Cited by 27 publications

References 155 publications

50 Years on, w(h)ither the Ramsar convention? A case of institutional drift

50 Years on, w(h)ither the Ramsar convention? A case of institutional drift

Exponential Growth and New Agendas – a Comprehensive Review of the Arctic Conference Sphere

Governance of Fragmented Compliance and Voluntary Carbon Markets Under the Paris Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About