Beyond a Global Deal: A UN+ Approach to Climate Governance
Executive Summary
A global agreement on binding emissions reductions is unlikely, but progress against climate change can still be made through a patchwork of initiatives and commitments by forward-thinking countries, sub-national governments, international organizations, businesses, and civil society. That is the conclusion of a working group of experts from China, Germany, and the United States, convened in the aftermath of the Copenhagen conference in late 2009 by the Global Public Policy Institute and its partners, the Hertie School of Government, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Fudan University, the Brookings Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University. The Working Group represented a diverse, carefully selected collection of individuals who work on climate change in academic, industrial, and governmental capacities. Over the course of a year, the Working Group applied scenario planning methodology to envision different ways the world might approach the challenge of climate change over the next decade. This Executive Summary outlines the three scenarios envisioned by the Working Group, as well as the insights and policy recommendations that derive from them.
The full report is available online at http://www.gg2020.net/products/climate_change_report/.
Three possible directions for climate governance
Our scenario analysis produced three possible outcomes for climate governance in 2020.
• Scenario 1, “Kyoto 2.0,” results from a growing international consensus on the necessity of deep emission cuts based on a series of global treaties. The result is a comprehensive, UN-led solution to climate change and the subsequent establishment of low-carbon economies around the world. Given the latest developments in Copenhagen and the expected results of Cancún, this scenario is highly unlikely to become reality.
• Scenario 2, “Stalemate,” presents climate governance in ruins. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process unravels with short-term thinking trumping long-term policy making. Neither the United States, China, Europe, nor developing countries see themselves in a position to take the lead in combating climate change.
• Scenario 3, “Patchwork governance,” witnesses a somewhat stalled UNFCCC process but also the initiation of a UN-plus process. A broad coalition of ambitious and pragmatic countries, regions, cities, companies, media, non-governmental organizations, and thought leaders contributes to the emergence of a complex, multilayered governance landscape. If scenario 1 cannot be achieved, this is the second best option.
We identify two windows of opportunity in which the decisions of key actors can shift climate governance from one scenario to another. In the next two years, the most important factor is the behavior of the world’s two largest emitters, China and the United States. Aggressive climate policies in either or both countries would serve as a catalyst for global action, sending a strong signal to industry and driving forward the multilateral process. Conversely, the failure of either nation to take aggressive steps to reduce emissions over the next few years will make it impossible to develop an effective global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) before 2020.
In the latter case, which we consider most likely, our analysis highlights a second window of opportunity, closing around the middle of the decade, during which a multilayered governance network radiating beyond the UN framework could emerge with sufficient support from ambitious governments, sub-national actors, industry groups, and civil society. We imagine that this patchwork scenario could create the conditions for an eventual rebirth of the global treaty process, but consider this unlikely before 2020.
Insights
Our analysis indicates that a comprehensive, effective global agreement to reduce GHGs is unlikely in the next decade. This conclusion follows from the political, social, and economic conditions that preclude aggressive action by the United States and China to reduce emissions. Such action, in turn, is necessary to drive a successful global treaty process. In particular, our analysis indicates that climate and energy legislation will remain sidelined over the next two years in the United States as other concerns take precedence, and as the Obama Administration’s ability to pass legislation is constrained by Republican gains in the 2010 mid-term elections. In China, meanwhile, our scenarios indicate that the government will continue to pursue significant policies to reduce carbon intensity, promote energy efficiency, and improve energy security. However, these policies will not include verifiable and internationally agreed emissions reductions targets. Under these conditions, our analysis suggests that other nations will not have sufficient incentives to create a meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
Therefore, our analysis indicates that the best way to tackle climate change in the post-Copenhagen era is to promote a “UN-plus” approach in which emissions reductions are achieved in an entrepreneurial, bottom-up process rather than in response to a comprehensive global treaty. This approach envisions that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will remain the focal point for global discussion of climate change. However, the initiative would pass to businesses, governments, and civil society groups that are already willing and able to reduce emissions, climate entrepreneurs,” to develop the economic, political, and social programs that will reduce global emissions.
Programs of this nature are already emerging across the world. The key challenge for policymakers, then, is how to bring them to the level of scope and ambition needed to have a substantial impact on the climate. Entrepreneurial climate governance does not mean relying only markets or environmentally-conscious citizens. Rather, governments, businesses, and civil society organizations who are concerned about climate change need to bind together to create the foundations for global action. While we believe that this approach will be less effective in reducing emissions than an effective global treaty, we also believe that tapping the energies of the world’s climate entrepreneurs presents new and exciting opportunities for governments, business, and civil society to meet the climate challenge in the next decade. This is largely uncharted territory for global environmental governance, so additional creative thinking is needed. Below we outline some initial steps.
Recommendations
Analysis of the three scenarios can inform policymaking for a multitude of actors wishing to curb global warming: The political and economic outlook does not favor the type of aggressive, binding emissions reductions in China and the US that is necessary for a multilateral treaty process (scenario 1) to emerge over the coming decade. Hence, policy makers should focus their energy on averting a global stalemate on climate governance (scenario 2) by pushing a UN+ approach of patchwork climate governance (scenario 3). Our analysis shows that the following three to four years are crucial in this endeavor.
• United States and China
We recommend that both countries, while reaffirming their commitment to the multilateral process, actively support an entrepreneurial “bottom-up” approach which encourages emissions reductions by cities, regions, companies and organizations. These reductions should be encouraged through strengthening transnational partnerships, such as the C-40 group of cities and industry associations.
• Private sector and civil society
Acting strategically, these players can divert scenario 2 (Stalemate) into scenario 3 (Patchwork Governance). We recommend that the private sector and civil society focus on building cross-national partnerships to lead where governments cannot, adopting voluntary emissions targets at the firm, sector, and industry levels. These and similar actions will allow leading firms to adapt to the new opportunities which a fragmented but more entrepreneurial governance landscape will inevitably present.
• European Union
We envision a powerful role for the EU in shaping a “coalition of the ambitious” countries committed to aggressive emissions reductions, while using both diplomatic and economic incentives and sanctions to promote participation by other countries and sub- and non-state actors within them. The EU can be the nucleus of the UN+ approach.
• UNFCCC Secretariat
The UNFCCC should expand beyond its state-centric and consensus-based structure to one which explicitly encourages a wider variety of approaches to climate governance. The UNFCCC can continue to play a vital role as the central forum of a UN+ approach, but if it fails to reach beyond the treaty-making process it will become increasingly marginalized.
