Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and sustainability governance

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement stand as milestone diplomatic achievements. However, immense discrepancies between political commitments and governmental action remain. Combined national climate commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement's 1.5/2°C targets. Similar political ambition gaps persist across various areas of sustainable development. Many therefore argue that actions by nonstate actors, such as businesses and investors, cities and regions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are crucial. These voices have resonated across the United Nations (UN) system, leading to growing recognition, promotion, and mobilization of such actions in ever greater numbers. This article investigates optimistic arguments about nonstate engagement, namely: (a) “the more the better”; (b) “everybody wins”; (c) “everyone does their part”; and (d) “more brings more.” However, these optimistic arguments may not be matched in practice due to governance risks. The current emphasis on quantifiable impacts may lead to the under‐appreciation of variegated social, economic, and environmental impacts. Claims that everybody stands to benefit may easily be contradicted by outcomes that are not in line with priorities and needs in developing countries. Despite the seeming depoliticization of the role of nonstate actors in implementation, actions may still lead to politically contentious outcomes. Finally, nonstate climate and sustainability actions may not be self‐reinforcing but may heavily depend on supporting mechanisms. The article concludes with governance risk‐reduction strategies that can be combined to maximize nonstate potential in sustainable and climate‐resilient transformations. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Following the Leaders? How to Restore Progress in Global Climate Governance

“…Some analysts look to subnational and nonstate actors. Coalitions by state, local, and private actors such as the We Are Still In Coalition and America's Pledge may partially compensate for the lack of federal ambition in the United States (Chan et al 2019;Hale 2016;Hsu et al 2019).…”

Towards a Global Biodiversity Action Agenda

“…A possible way to analyse this question is by analysing existing procedures Learning from the UNFCCC Could an 'Action Agenda for Nature and People' building on the above-mentioned initiatives provide similar benefits for the CBD and biodiversity governance as the climate action agenda has done for the UNFCCC? Chan et al (2019) neatly sum up four promises and pitfalls regarding non-state and sub-national action. Also, sub-national and non-state actors have set up supporting events such as the 2018 Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco (generating over 500 new commitments), which was convened by the Governor of Californian and co-chaired by global leaders from business and civil society.…”

“…The decisions embody a paradigmatic shift from a 'regulatory' model to a 'catalytic and facilitative' model bringing non-state and sub-national actors into the core of the climate change regime (Hale, 2016). Chan et al (2019) neatly sum up four promises and pitfalls regarding non-state and sub-national action. First, while non-state and sub-national actors could fill 'governance gaps' left by governments in the implementation of international agreements, the lack of clear accounting procedure could lead to overestimations and double-counting (see Widerberg and Pattberg, 2015).…”

Catalyzing mitigation ambition under the Paris Agreement: elements for an effective Global Stocktake

“…While other drivers of ambition exist, e.g. the ever increasing engagement of non-state and subnational actors (Chan et al, 2019), the GST is supposed to transfer this momentum and galvanize national governments into more ambitious climate action represented in significantly more progressive subsequent Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (cf. UNFCCC, 2016b, Art.…”