1

Increasing Variety ofVertical and Horizontal Interplay

in Climate Politics

Norichika Kanie, Ph. D

Associate ProfessorTokyo Institute of Technology, and

Visiting Associate Professor

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies

2

1. Challenge

3

Challenge: UNFCCC ARTICLE 2 - OBJECTIVE

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

20

60

20

70

20

80

20

90

21

00

年

温室効果ガス排出量 (二酸化炭素換算：GtC

/年)0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

19

90

20

00

20

10

20

20

20

30

20

40

20

50

20

60

20

70

20

80

20

90

21

00

21

10

21

20

21

30

21

40

21

50

年

気温上昇 (1990

年=0.6℃)

BaU GHG-475ppm GHG-500ppm GHG-550ppm GHG-650ppm

temperature emissions

Japan Low-carbon Society 2050

• Scenario: SRES B2

• Global GHG reduction in 2050：

• 475ppmv: -50.4% (‘90 level) Even GHG475ppmv scenario allows approx. 2℃ increase

VERY BIG Long-term Challenge ahead of us…

5

Back casting：：：：Need to decide the direction ASAP to reach the goal

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

BAU referenceBAU reference

casecase

Forecasting Forecasting

policy casepolicy case

Year

DeDe--carbonizationcarbonization

Policy casePolicy case

↓60%

↓80%

↓40% reduction

Backcasting

Set a target society

and back case from

the future

perspective

Forecasting

Future scenarios in terms of the effort that can

be thought in the current society

Ideal s

ocie

ty

Masui（（（（NIES/TITech））））

CO

2em

issio

ns:

Mill

ion t

on C

arb

on-C

O2）

6

2. Political and Institutional Reactionto the Challenge

7

2002

1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change（（（（UNFCCC））））

Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol

1997 Kyoto Protocol (COP3)

2004

2005

Russian ratification to KP (November)

UNFCCC COP／／／／MOP1 (Nov. – Dec.)Starting the debate over beyond first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol

2008－－－－2012 First Commitment Period

New Climate Change Policy Programme

KyotoProtocol TargetAchievement Plan (28 April)

2004：：：：Programme review

Kyoto Protocol Entry into Force (16 February)

How does politics deal with the challenge?

• Not less than 55 Parties to the convention

• And incorporating Annex I (industrialized countries) parties which accounted in total for at least 55 % of the total CO2 emissions of Annex I parties for 1990

US decided not to ratify the KP

Agenda Formation

Negotiation

OperationalizationNew Phase of Negotiation

8

Recent developments on (Future) Climate Change Institution

１．Entering into force of the KP and accompanying institutional developments (esp. in EU)

２．(possibly) Climate impacts (e.g. heat wave in Europe, frequent (and stronger) typhoon, unusual hurricane) and scientific knowledge development about impact: sense of urgency is growing along with the development of climate models

growing necessity of various policies and strategies in addition to KP (esp. in the long run)

３．Various initiatives/partnerships outside the framework of UNFCCC/KP

� Gleneagles Plan of Action and its follow-up

� Asia-pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP)

� “Beyond the Nation States” level initiatives – City, Mayor, US state, etc.

9

PartnershipsCSD14: 25% among 319 Partnership Projects is climate change

related ( as of 24 February 2006)

� Gleneagles Plan of Action

� Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership

� International Partnership for Bioenergy

� Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum: Australia, Brazil, Can, China, Colombia, India, Ita, Jpn, Mex, Nor, Rus, UK, EC

� International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE): Aus, Brazil, Can, China, EC, Fra, Ger, Iceland, India, Ita, Jpn, Kor, Nor, Rus, UK, US

� Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M)

� Generation IV International Forum (GIF)

� Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

10

� Our scenario has implied that variety of actions need to be taken in order to facilitate behavioral change leading to a low-carbon society

� Greater “participation” to institutions on climate change is indispensable, not only that of nation states, but also participation by the society as a whole

11

3. Vertical Interplay

(formal and informal)

for enhanced actions

in tackling

climate change

12

Markets

& free interaction networks

National controls &ad hoc regulations

State

International regimes

BusinessBusiness

State

CSOs

NGOs

BusinessBusiness

CSOs

NGOs

Goods & bads Goods & bads＜＜＜＜＜＜＜＜FeedbackFeedback＞＞＞＞＞＞＞＞

World order (meta regime)

Global Governance

Key actors to link international

AndDomestic levels

13

COP(Annual)

SBI

Plenary

Contact Group

Contact GroupContact

Group

SBSTA

IPCC

Reports(Incl.

Assessment Rep)

Summary for Policy-makers

(SPMs)

NGOs

BINGOENGOLGMAIPO

RINGO

: Interaction depends on personal capacity (not necessarily institutionalized): Explicit (institutionalized) interaction

UNFCCC (decision-making) process and non-governmental actors

CDM Project

14

NGOs in UNFCCC negotiation

context

� BINGOs (the business and industry non-governmental organizations)

� ENGOs (the environmental non-governmental organizations)

� LGMAs (local government and municipal authorities, since COP1)

� IPOs (indigenous peoples organizations, since COP7)

� RINGOs (the research-oriented and independent organizations)

15

n/a*164.8159.8n/a*112.7(4) NGO ratio(3) / (1)*100

n/a*23573663n/a*979(3) Number of NGO participants

n/a*148236n/a*165(2) Number of NGO registered (organization)

151414302273405869(1) Number of Delegation

COP5COP4COP3COP2COP1

NGO representatives in COP (incl. business)

16

123.2126.654.687.2151.3(4) (3) / (1)

24041858132715873552(3) Number of NGOparticipants

267168194219275(2) Number of NGO

19511468243218192215(1) Number of Delegation

COP9COP8COP7COP6bisCOP6

NGO representatives in COP (incl. business)

17

In addition…Some countries have NGOs in government delegation

� NGOs in governmental delegation (while usually act as NGOs/business people)

� Literally crossing/blurring the border of nation states by being governmental

delegation

� Bring the local concerns in the negotiation

from inside

� Observe negotiation more closely for bring

the result back

18

815847Industry

342117712Research NGO

19(2)16(2)17(0)5(2)10(0)climate NGO (develop’t NGO)

COP5COP4COP3COP2COP1

19

3471272Other (incl. Youth)

2327272419Industry

5228332732Research NGO

16(1)14(2)15(2)24(1)28(1)climate NGO (develop’t NGO)

COP9COP8COP7COP6bisCOP6

20

Number of NGOs in delegation (COP by COP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C

O

P

1

C

O

P

2

C

O

P

3

C

O

P

4

C

O

P

5

C

O

P

6

C

O

P

6

b

is

C

O

P

7

C

O

P

8

C

O

P

9

COP Meeting

number

environmental NGO

Development NGO

Research NGO

Industry

Other (incl. Youth)

21

Functions� Strategic: depends on the strategy of the

government and on how the government perceives NGOs� Also, depends on historical relationship

� Participation does not necessarily mean influence� Greater roles and more influential if the positions

are similar (also true is that government cannot bring only like-minded NGOs in theory, due to political accountability)

� Personal trust also matters

� Gain transparency (both for governments and NGOs) and increase possibilities to realize ideas, in return for free hands

� Symbolic effect

22

Evaluation� should not just pay attention to whether or not NGOs

are in the delegation, but we need to pay attention to the general relations between NGOs and the government in order to evaluate the actual effect

� By being in the governmental delegation, an NGO member can go beyond being an advisor and even become a (quasi-)negotiator as an approved member of the government

� Capacity-building effect

� Position effect: can bridge the information and position gap

� might be able to be a basis to create a new coalition through “interactive diplomacy”

23

GEF: an institutional front runnerto promote a better vertical linkage?

24

A case for adaptation

GEF

Assistance to Address Adaptation

AFAdaptation

Fund

(2% of the share

of the proceeds

of the CDM)

LDCFLeast Developed

Country Fund

（preparation and

implementation

of NAPAs）

SCCFSpecial Climate

Change Fund

Top Priority to

Adaptation

SPAGEF Trust Fund

Strategic Priority

Piloting an

Operational

Approach to

Adaptation

Source：GEF, 2005Kanako Morita (2006)

25

Emerging Institutionalized Vertical Interplay

GEF GEF

Nation

CommunityCommunity

Local

National

Global

Community Community

Local

Kanako Morita (2006)

Adaptation

26

Overseas Aid to Tuvalu

Tuvalu

GEF

National

Global

Communities Local

Regional

EU

ADB

FFASPREPP

ESCAP

UNDP

WHO

SPC

UNFPAUNESCO

Japan CFTC

AUS

NZTaiwan

France

Canada

Multilateral Assistance

Bilateral Assistance

SOPAC

Forum Secretariat

UNTA

Kanako Morita (2006)

27

Financing from the GEF(Vertical governance and actor linkage)

GEF GEF

Tuvalu

CommunityCommunity

Local

National

Global

Kaupule TANGO

Local

SOPAC

Regional

ADBSPC

Kanako Morita (2006)

28

GEF also creates horizontal interplay

Global Environmental

Facility（（（（GEF））））

Executing Agencies:FAO, UNIDO, AfDB,

ADB, EBRD, IDB,

IFAD

UNDP

UNDP-

GEF

UNEP

UNEP-

GEF

World Bank

World Bank-

GEF

Private

Sectors

NGOs

Bilateral

Development Aid

Organizations: e.g.

JBIC, AusAID,

USAID

GEF serves for six different issue-areas: climate change, biodiversity, international waters, land degradation the ozone layer, persistent organic pollutants

Kanako Morita (2006)

29

4. Horizontal Interplay

30

Partnerships: possibly emerging institutions to create/enhance network of actors

CSD14: 25% among 319 Partnership Projects is climate change related ( as of 24 February 2006)

� Gleneagles Plan of Action

� Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership

� International Partnership for Bioenergy

� Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum: Australia, Brazil, Can, China, Colombia, India, Ita, Jpn, Mex, Nor, Rus, UK, EC

� International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE): Aus, Brazil, Can, China, EC, Fra, Ger, Iceland, India, Ita, Jpn, Kor, Nor, Rus, UK, US

� Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M)

� Generation IV International Forum (GIF)

� Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

31

� Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)

� 674 participants in 30 countries worldwide

� World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC)

And more…

� Public – Private partnerships

� The Kiko Network in Japan works on environmental education as well as on community based climate change prevention with the city of Kyoto

� “PowerSwitch!” campaign by WWF, in collaboration with electric power companies

Also emerging are horizontal interplay of lower players in government hierarchy…

32

Types of MNC-NGO partnership

1. Joint establishment of international standards & certification programs

E.g. Forestry Stewardship Council; Marine Stewardship Council

3. Joint ventures with local NGOs

E.g., Greenfreeze Refrigerator; Micro Compact Cars;

The Environmental Defense Fund

4. Endorsement of products/companies by NGOs

E.g., SA8000 Principles; The Carbon Storage Trust

2. Strategic dialogues with a wide array of NGOs

E.g., Shell on corporate environmental reporting

[[ProblemsProblems] - Shortage of good NGOsShortage of good NGOs!!

-- Limited social reach of Limited social reach of

consumer politicsconsumer politicsUsui (2004)

33

5. What happens next??

34

Studies on Institutions

• Distributive but tight networked structure is the most feasible to solve a complex problem

Climate Change

• Still important aspect is that, changing the direction of the society (from non- sustainable to a sustainable development path) needs a strong guidance / incentive / targets

35

Networked Distributive Governance

- An Image -

Climate Change

Biodiversity

Air Pollution

Positive linkage is also made through actors playing various functions of governance

Natural linkage

And

Institutional linkage

36

• By Business/Industry• Government (ODA)

• Regional Development Banks• Multilateral bodies

Financing

• NGO

• Scientific community

• IOs

• National and Local Governments

Promote vertical linkage

• Business/Industry• IOs

• NGOs• Science community (education/training)

Capacity building (organizational skills)

• Business/Industry (joint venture)• Official technical assistance (national and local government)

• Business/Industry• Science community (education/training)

Capacity building (tech transfer)

• NGO campaigns• (Hard) Law • WTO and MEA rules

Enforcement

• NGOs

• IOs

• GovernmentsPolicy Verification

• NGOs (equity & environmental

preservation)• Business/Industry (efficiency)

• Epistemic communitiesNorm development

• Business/Industry (de facto standards)

• NGOs (principled standards)

• Negotiations by national governmentsRule making

• NGOs (particularly in developing countries)

• Scientists

• IOs• committees nominated by MEA secretariat

• MEA signatory governments

Monitoring

• Scientists

• NGOs

• ScientistsDeveloping usable knowledge

• NGOs

• Media• Scientists

• IOs and member statesAgenda setting

• Scientists• Business/industry

• Inter-governmental negotiations• (New information provided by) epistemic communities

• Through financial mechanisms (GEF)• IOs (GEO/WEO)

Issue linkage

Informal/indirectFormal/directFunction

出典：Kanie and Haas (2003)Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance, UNU Press