Leadership in Global Environmental Politics

Abstract

There is wide consensus among global environmental politics (GEP) scholars about the urgent need for leadership in international climate negotiations and other environmental issue areas A large number of GEP studies elaborate rhetoric and actions of aspiring leaders in GEP. In particular, these studies seek to identify which states have sought to provide leadership in international negotiations on the environment, and how they have exercised this role in institutional bargaining processes at the international level. The biggest share of GEP studies generally focus on leadership in environmental governance within the United Nations (UN), and international negotiations on climate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in general, or the role of the European Union (EU) in those negotiations in particular. Many GEP scholars have also investigated the leadership role of the United States in international environmental regime formation, whereas there are no systematic investigations concerning China’s leadership in GEP. In addition to the states, GEP literature identifies a wide range of other actors as potential leaders (and followers) in environmental issue areas: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, corporations, cities, religious organizations, social movements, politicians, and even individuals. Since leadership is a social relation, a growing number of scholars have moved to study perceptions of leadership and to conceptualize the relationship between leaders and followers. GEP scholars also identify some qualitative aspects a leader must have in order to attract followers. Many empirical studies show that despite the EU’s aspiration to be a climate leader, it is not unequivocally recognized as such by others. At the same time, it seems that some forms of leadership, especially those based on unilateral action, do not necessarily require followers and recognition by others. In addition to the leader–follower relationship, the motivation of leadership constitutes one of the key controversies among GEP scholars. Some argue that self-interest is a sufficient driver of leadership, while others claim that leaders must act for the common good of a wider constituency (or at least be perceived to do so). To conclude, most scholars studying leadership in GEP regard structural leadership (based on material capabilities and hard power) as an important type of leadership. Much less attention has been paid to the social dimensions of leadership; this is undoubtedly a gap in the literature that prospective studies ought to fill.

The Politics of Environmental Consensus: The Case of the World Commission on Dams

“…While facilitative leaders (such as Asmal and Steiner, in this case), seek to facilitate dialogue and cooperation, leaders in GEP are more commonly understood as wishing to influence others to bring them closer to their own position (Andresen and Agrawala 2002, Underdal 1994, Young 1991). Kopra (2020) finds that facilitative leadership in GEP is understudied, and potentially associated with non-Western countries. It is also worth noting that most GEP literature on leadership considers 'countries' as its unit of analysis, not individuals (Andonova and Mitchell 2010), perhaps due to the pervasive focus on global climate policy (e.g., Busby and Urpelainen 2020).…”

Does Science Shape Sentiment? Scientific Inputs and the Deliberations in the Convention on Biological Diversity

“…Pushing is a social process where a coalition with normative or epistemic agreement can introduce and influence the processes of discussion in the wider deliberative space. Haas and Haas (1995, 277) explain how “Organizations that learned were ruled by a dominant coalition whose members were in agreement on the main principles of world order” (see also: Ingebritsen, 2002; Tobin, 2017; and Kopra, 2020). Aside from such state-based coalitions, the literature has emphasized the influence of nongovernmental organizations acting as norm entrepreneurs in these processes (Park, 2005; Ayling & Gunningham, 2017; Blondeel et al, 2019; Shibaike, 2022).…”

Environmental Governance and International Relations: A Systematic Review of Theories, Methods, and Issues in Latin American Publications

“…Socially, 18 of the 20 most unequal 5 countries in the world are located in Latin America (World Bank, 2022). Politically, the region has staged frequent corruption scandals and recurrent coup attempts 6 , and major government actors have been absent or have not actively participated in leading global environmental negotiations and accords (Gallagher, 2012;Kopra, 2020). Nevertheless, some countries, like Brazil, have enormous potential in terms of Revista 96.2 environmental leadership (Hochstetler, 2022), and in specific topics countries have promoted remarkable initiatives (Castro et al, 2011).…”