Building or stumbling blocks? Assessing the performance of polycentric energy and climate governance networks

Abstract

Polycentric governance networks are on the rise in global energy and climate governance, but we know surprisingly little about their effectiveness. This paper analyzes the performance of four such transnational energy and climate governance networks. In the realm of sustainable energy, our cases are the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) and the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC). In the climate sphere, we examine the effectiveness of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI). Using principles from governance and public administration about the effectiveness of institutions, we examine the extent to which four networks have contributed to improving governance outcomes in the spheres of climate and sustainable energy. Our evaluation focuses on the clarity of purpose, funding, institutional formality, efficacy, and level of resilience of these networks. Some differences between the networks notwithstanding, we find that the transnational governance networks generally fail to meet the criteria about what constitutes an effective institution. The paper concludes with a reflection on what could be done to enhance the performance of these governance networks. governance 3. Polycentric governance assessment framework Polycentrism, a form of governance that blends scales and/or types of actors (Visseren-Hamakers, 2015; Galaz et al. 2012) is related to the more recent literature on 'network governance' and 'governance networks'. McGinnis and Ostrom (2012) note that the concept of polycentricity, first laid out by Michael Polanyi (1951) and later adopted by Vincent Ostrom et al. (1961), can be seen as an early statement of the critical importance of network forms of governance in democratic societies. Yet, the more recent literature on network governance and governance networks rarely makes any mention to this pioneering work (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012), despite the similarity of the concepts. Nonetheless, the'governance networks' that are formed by actors from the state, the market and civil society to address climate change can be said to provide 'polycentric governance' in the sense that they include the self-organizing relationship between many centers of decision-making that are formally independent of each other (Ostrom et al., 1961: p. 831;Ostrom, 2010).In this section we propose four criteria, drawn mostly from the literature on public administration, policy sciences, and governance, to assess the performance of polycentric energy and climate networks, building on an earlier study by Poocharoen and Sovacool (2012). We employ the term 'performance', which allows for a more contextualized evaluation compared with the concept of 'effectiveness'. Whereas effectiveness usually refers to 'outcome' (i.e., goal attainment), performance refers more to 'process' (i.e., the manner by which outputs and outcomes are achieved). Here, we argue it includes the ability of the network to (1) set clear goals; (2) mobilize resources; (3) adopt formal structures; (4) make int...

The Performance of the Climate-Energy Nexus

“…These efforts vary from minilateral, local, and transnational initiatives to private regulation, technology agreements, and market-based mechanisms (Hoffman 2011; Hjerpe and Nasiritousi 2015). Likewise, governance efforts to address energy demands on the international level are fragmented, and even lack a core multilateral institution similar to the role the UNFCCC plays within the institutional complex on climate change (Sovacool and Florini 2012;Wilson 2015;Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). This fragmented climate-energy nexus may imply severe challenges for both state and nonstate actors to effectively combat climate change and transition to fossil-free energy systems (Falkner 2014).…”

“…At the same time, national sovereignty concerns have left multilateral cooperation on energy without a central or focal institution similar to the UNFCCC in climate governance Sovacool and Florini 2012; Barnsley and Ahn 2014;Wilson 2015;Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). As current energy systems are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, transformation in the consumption and production of energy in major emitter states, across developing and developed countries, is a key in setting the world on a low-carbon path (Goldthau and Witte 2010;Cherp et al 2011;Dubash and Florini 2011;Nasiritousi 2017;IEA 2018).…”

“…Comparing these three policy areas, it can be observed that they are characterized by multiple governance institutions and a patchwork of actors, rules, and decision-making processes (Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016;Sanderink et al 2017). Renewable energy, to take one example, is discussed not only within the United Nations (UN), but also in technology partnerships and international organizations such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI), Energy +, and in a number of private-public partnerships and private initiatives such as the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) (Widerberg and Pattberg 2015;Sanderink et al 2017;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). Many of these institutions have overlapping mandates and memberships among governments and nongovernmental actors, while exercising different governance functions ; see also .…”

“…Bazilian et al 2011;Sovacool 2011;Bradshaw 2014;Falkner 2014Falkner , 2018Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016). Second, while all studies share the starting assumption that institutional complexity matters, there are no systematic comparative analyses about how exactly it may affect the effectiveness or legitimacy of individual institutions or entire institutional complexes, or how certain actors may benefit or be disadvantaged in a complex governance architecture Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). Third, in empirical terms, the scholarship on institutional interactions has mostly provided insights into dyadic relationships between two international regimes or public institutions composed by national governments (Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Chambers 2008;Young et al 2008;Oberthür and Stokke 2011), while placing less emphasis on broader governance interactions that also include hybrid, private, and informal institutions Sanderink et al 2017).…”

“…The partnership is governed by a Governing Board and an Advisory Board and is steered by an international team with more than twenty staff members and consultants. REEEP is seen as an important multi-stakeholder partnership with a clear purpose, significant output, and strong institutional formality (Pattberg et al 2009;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018).…”