Search

This article explores anti‐fossil fuel norms (AFFNs), which set behavioral standards for phasing out practices and processes across the fossil fuel supply chain. In recent years, AFFNs have emerged and become increasingly institutionalized in global climate governance. However, they remain contested and have not yet achieved widespread acceptance. Much of the contestation concerns the perceived equity of these norms. Drawing on insights from the literature on AFFNs and expert interviews, this article investigates equity‐related issues that arise in the context of four key AFFNs: phasing out coal‐fired power, phasing out oil and gas, ending public financing for fossil fuels, and reforming fossil fuel subsidies. We find that each of these norms is well placed to contribute to a shift away from a fossil fuel‐based economy. However, these norms are often framed in ways that do not account for the distributional impacts of this shift, which may lead to unintended and inequitable consequences. We conclude that AFFNs need to be developed and deployed to actively consider the needs of marginalized communities. Policymakers and non‐governmental organizations can work together to develop norms that prioritize addressing equity and distributional justice concerns in the transition away from fossil fuels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that "leaves no one behind." Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over‐arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer‐reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre‐condition for progress on the SDGs for all people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prominent conceptualizations of policy coherence for sustainable development focus primarily on the roles of intra‐governmental policy processes and institutional interactions in shaping coherence between various agendas and policies. These technocratic understandings of coherence overlook the more political drivers of coherence, such as the vested interests or ideologies that may encourage or hinder efforts to achieve coherence. This paper addresses this gap by drawing on the comparative politics literature to facilitate a political understanding of policy coherence. It introduces an analytical framework hypothesizing how ideas, institutions, and interests (the three I's) may influence policy coherence at different policy stages. As such, it includes measures of how policy coherence is applied by different actors and institutions, and whose ideas and interests may be served by pursuing or not pursuing coherence. This article provides an example of how the framework can be applied to study policy coherence between two prominent international agendas: Agenda 2030 (incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals) and the Paris Agreement. Overall, the paper argues that the three I's influence policy options and shape the ambition and importance given to different agendas, goals and actors in pursuing or resisting policy coherence. This framework is suited for assessing the political divers of policy coherence through being applied to empirical data at global or national levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to investigate how political and technical factors influence climate finance coordination in different country contexts. Emerging scholarly and policy literature calls for the improved coordination of climate finance to enhance the effectiveness of multiple sources of funding for adaptation and mitigation purposes, with country ownership over coordination emerging as a potential approach. However, few studies have examined how climate finance coordination unfolds at the national level in developing countries. This paper presents findings from a comparative assessment of climate finance coordination practices in Kenya and Zambia, drawing on semi-structured interviews, policy documents, and relevant literature. Specifically, the paper investigates how political and technical forces shape climate finance coordination in contexts with varying country ownership over the coordination process. We find that political factors relating to power dynamics, framings of climate finance, and vested interests play a strong role in shaping how actors interact, hampering coordination efforts within the climate finance landscape in both countries. This adds a new dimension to calls for greater country ownership, which we suggest needs to be paired with a critical examination of political struggles and contestation. Underlying political factors relating to conflicting vested interests, different framings and discourses, political will, and power dynamics play a substantive and overarching role in shaping climate finance coordination in Kenya and Zambia. These political factors limit the extent to which greater country ownership translates to better or more effective coordination of climate finance; as such, ownership needs to be examined in the context of political struggles and contestation. Instead of just aiming to improve coordination through more formalized coordination structures, capacity building and reduced fragmentation, countries also need to be more transparent and acknowledge the deep-seated interests within the climate finance landscape, to make visible the winners and losers of various coordination mechanisms and structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global efforts to decarbonize heavy industry remain insufficiently aligned. While relatively new forms of international collaboration between and among states and companies are emerging, there is still considerable room to embark on more structured knowledge-sharing activities and coherent action among nations. In order to assess the concrete needs of an industry transition at scale, this paper analyzes 29 industry transition roadmaps across 13 countries, spanning the value chain of extractive, processing, and end-use heavy industry sectors. We compare and contrast these roadmaps according to the degree of ambition in decarbonization targets, the financial costs of implementing the roadmaps, and the key mitigation measures to achieve decarbonization targets. Importantly, this paper synthesizes and categorizes key policy, finance, and technology requirements called for to enable roadmap implementation. We demonstrate that the implementation of roadmaps across different industries and countries encounters common and comparable barriers and challenges, highlighting the need for international cooperation to facilitate global industry transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which the existence of a polycentric climate governance regime in Pakistan has enabled diverse framings of climate justice to emerge and be operationalized within policymaking. A two-part analysis is conducted through systematic coding and textual analysis of interview transcripts and policy documents. Firstly, an analysis based on climate justice framings reveals that, whilst national governmental actors predominantly adopt an international framing of climate justice, non-state actors have increasingly adopted vulnerability, human rights and transformational framings of justice, thereby supporting the theory that polycentricity is widening the space for voicing diverse framings. Secondly, a polycentric governance-based analysis reveals that several institutional barriers limit the ability of non-state actors to operationalize these framings, particularly capacity and resource constraints, limits of scale and scope, changing legislation and the unequivocal power held by the state. Hence, Pakistan's overarching climate change strategy prioritizes justice between countries, while obscuring domestic inequalities, poverty and vulnerability, which are only addressed by non-state actors through isolated activities rather than in a coordinated manner within national policy. This finding suggests that polycentric governance can diversify climate discourse, but also that the intergovernmental climate regime may reinforce the nation state's international framings of justice at the expense of domestic justice concerns. Key policy insights Non-state actors within the polycentric climate governance regime in Pakistan are increasingly adopting framings of climate justice beyond those of the nation state, thereby bringing attention to issues of domestic poverty, inequality and vulnerability. Differences in power between state and non-state actors limit the extent to which different justice issues can be addressed through nationally and internationally-led climate policy. There are limitations to the ability of national-level polycentric climate governance regimes, when embedded in intergovernmental negotiations, to engage in redistributing power and advocating for different framings and dimensions of justice being raised by local actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With increasing globalisation of bioresource use, expanding trade in bio-based products, and transboundary environmental impacts, distinct international dimensions arise in the governance of the bioeconomy. These international dimensions suggest that—despite bioeconomy strategies being largely national endeavours thus far—increased international cooperation and collaboration on the emerging bioeconomy is warranted. This paper looks at the global environmental governance landscape and investigates which fora, institutions, and processes might support and strengthen the international governance of bioeconomy pathways. The paper focuses on institutions that work in a cross-sectoral manner and is, to our knowledge, a first attempt at this exploration in the bioeconomy literature. Thus, the paper aims at increasing our understanding of how global bioeconomy pathways are governed and which venues of cooperation could play a more important role in the future. Based on a focused literature review, stakeholder engagement and semi-structured interviews with bioeconomy experts, we observe that, while there are many institutions playing a role in global bioeconomy governance, several barriers remain. We propose that regional cooperation might be a promising way forward to address common challenges and opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review evaluates the potential of the proposed local communities and Indigenous peoples' platform to effectively engage traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) for climate policy. Specifically, we assess the platform's potential to enable greater representation and participation of Indigenous peoples (IPs) within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). An analytical framework based on the extensive TEK and environmental management literature is developed, with a set of criteria identified against which to evaluate the platform. We find that although the process of designing the platform appears to be inclusive of Indigenous views, the structure itself does not recognize the roles that unequal power relations and colonialism play in marginalizing IPs. Limited attention is paid to the institutional barriers within the UNFCCC and the drawbacks of pursuing knowledge "integration" as an end in itself. Based on this, recommendations for improving the platform structure are put forward including using a rights‐based framing, giving greater decision‐making power to IPs, and developing mechanisms to ensure the holistic integrity of TEK and build the overall resilience of climate mitigation and adaptation systems. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]