Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research

The editorial article rebuts the common assertions that equity is irrelevant in a post Paris climate research and argue that analyses of equity and justice are essential for our ability to understand climate politics and contribute to concrete efforts to achieve adequate, fair and enduring climate action for present and future generations

The CBD Post‐2020 biodiversity framework: People's place within the rest of nature

Recognizing two decades of failure to achieve global goals and targets, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are in the final phase of negotiating a Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework for the conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing of biodiversity. The framework attempts to set out pathways, goals and targets for the next decade to achieve positive biodiversity change. This perspective intends to help that framework set people firmly as part of nature, not apart from it. Despite work done so far through four meetings, new thinking and focus is still needed on ‘what’ changes must be conceptualized and implemented, and ‘how’ those changes are to be delivered. To help achieve that new thinking, as a broad range of people, many with a focus on aquatic systems, we highlight six key foci that offer potential to strengthen delivery of the framework and break the ‘business as usual’ logjam. These foci are as follows: (i) a reframing of the narrative of ‘people's relationship with the rest of nature’ and emphasize the crucial role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in delivering positive biodiversity change; (ii) moving beyond a focus on species and places by prioritizing ecosystem function and resilience; (iii) supporting a diversity of top-down and bottom-up governance processes; (iv) embracing new technologies to make and measure progress; (v) linking business more effectively with biodiversity and (vi) leveraging the power of international agencies and programmes. Given they are linked to a greater or lesser degree, implementing these six foci together will lead to a much-needed broadening of the framework, especially those of business and broader urban civil society, as well as those of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog

Barriers to Implementing the International Integrated Reporting Framework: A Contemporary Academic Perspective

Purpose: This paper is motivated by the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) call for feedback from all stakeholders with knowledge of the International Integrated Reporting Framework , and specifically of the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. The paper synthesises insights from contemporary accounting research into integrated reporting (IR) as a general concept, and integrated reporting as espoused by the IIRC in the (IIRC, 2013). We specifically focus on possible barriers and emphasise the specific issues we feel could be rectified to advance the , along with the areas that may potentially hinder wider adoption and implementation. Design/methodology/approach: The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the IR and academic literature as well as various directives, policy and framework pronouncements. Findings: The flexibility and lack of prescription concerning actual disclosures and metrics in the could allow it to be used for compliance, regardless of the other benefits lauded by the IIRC. Thus we see forces, both external and internal, driving adoption, with one prominent example being the European Union Directive on non-financial reporting. Because of the different ways in which IR is understood and enacted, there are numerous theoretical and empirical challenges for academics. Our paper highlights potential areas for further robust academic research, and the need to contribute to policy and practice. Research limitations/implications: The paper provides the IIRC, academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into current practice and the framework. We highlight the need for further development and evidence to help inform improvements both from a policy and a practice perspective. A key limitation of our work is that we draw upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is still in an early stage of development. Originality/value: The paper provides the IIRC with several insights into the current , and specifically with the enablers, incentives and barriers to its implementation. Also, it provides academic researchers with a number of important observations and an agenda upon which they can build their future research

ECORISK2050: An Innovative Training Network for predicting the effects of global change on the emission, fate, effects, and risks of chemicals in aquatic ecosystems

By 2050, the global population is predicted to reach nine billion, with almost three quarters living in cities. The road to 2050 will be marked by changes in land use, climate, and the management of water and food across the world. These global changes (GCs) will likely affect the emissions, transport, and fate of chemicals, and thus the exposure of the natural environment to chemicals. ECORISK2050 is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network that brings together an interdisciplinary consortium of academic, industry and governmental partners to deliver a new generation of scientists, with the skills required to study and manage the effects of GCs on chemical risks to the aquatic environment. The research and training goals are to: (1) assess how inputs and behaviour of chemicals from agriculture and urban environments are affected by different environmental conditions, and how different GC scenarios will drive changes in chemical risks to human and ecosystem health; (2) identify short-to-medium term adaptation and mitigation strategies, to abate unacceptable increases to risks, and (3) develop tools for use by industry and policymakers for the assessment and management of the impacts of GC-related drivers on chemical risks. This project will deliver the next generation of scientists, consultants, and industry and governmental decision-makers who have the knowledge and skillsets required to address the changing pressures associated with chemicals emitted by agricultural and urban activities, on aquatic systems on the path to 2050 and beyond

A Leap of Green Faith: the religious discourse of Socio-Ecological Care as an Earth system governmentality

The Anthropocene is fundamentally altering concepts of human agency and responsibility in the governance of the Earth system. These concepts are paramount in discussions about governing deliberate interventions into the global climate – often referred to as ‘climate engineering’. Reflections on what it might mean for humanity to ‘play God’ by controlling the climate have brought religious knowledge to bear in these discussions. Using climate engineering as a paradigmatic example of human interventions which may come to define the Anthropocene, this paper presents a sociology-of-knowledge discourse analysis of interviews with environmentally active multi-faith leaders and scholars. Showing how green religious discourse provides a blueprint for a governmentality of Socio-Ecological Care (SEC), the paper argues that religious knowledge has a role to play alongside other global systems of knowledge in reconceptualising the who, what, why and how of responsible and sustainable Earth system governance in the Anthropocene

Transforming our world? Discursive representation in the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals

Calls to advance the democratization of sustainable development negotiations have recently proliferated. However, the participatory schemes set up by international organizations and governments have fallen short of answering to academic and empirical demands for global democracy, in particular by excluding the most marginalized actors from policymaking. Deliberative democrats argue that discursive representation may, in some contexts, overcome the shortcomings of actor-based representation and advance global democracy. To what extent, then, does discursive representation effectively contribute to the democratization of global policymaking by representing diverse interests, including those of marginalized actors? By performing a qualitative–quantitative discourse analysis of 122 primary documents issued during the formal sessions of negotiations of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, this article explores the extent to which different sustainability discourses that evolve in the public space got represented within authoritative circles of decision-making. While the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals involved more than ten million civil society voices and resulted in an agreement that claims to “transform our world” and “leave no-one behind,” the study shows that discursive representation was biased toward a progressive sustainability discourse, depicting a state-centric orientation of equity and responsibilities to address global sustainable development challenges. Besides, the coalitions that emerged between state and non-state actors on alternative sustainability discourses failed to increase the saliency of the interests of marginalized actors in the shaping of the goals. As the understandings of transformation and inclusiveness conveyed in the negotiations were biased toward the interests of the most represented actors in the Open Working Group, the article reveals that in the context of the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals the effectiveness of discursive representation in democratizing global policymaking was eventually limited

Leaving no one behind? The influence of civil society participation on the Sustainable Development Goals

Spaces for civil society participation within intergovernmental negotiations on sustainability have multiplied since the 1992 Earth Summit. Such participatory spaces are often uncritically accepted as a remedy for an assumed democratic deficit of intergovernmental policymaking. I argue, however, that civil society’s capacity to democratize global sustainability governance is constrained by the limited influence of these spaces on policymaking. The article explores the relationship between the format of participatory spaces and their influence on the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals. It finds that civil society is more likely to influence within informal and exclusive participatory spaces, and when these spaces are provided early in the negotiating process, at international and national level. This reveals a democracy–influence paradox, as the actors with the capacities to engage repeatedly and informally with negotiators are seldom those that are most representative of global civil society

Locating Cities and Their Governments in Multi-Level Sustainability Governance

Cities and their governments are increasingly recognized as important actors in global sustainability governance. With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, their role in the global endeavor to foster sustainability has once again been put in the spotlight. Several scholars have highlighted pioneering local strategies and policies to implement the Sustainable Development Goals and render urban areas more sustainable. However, the question of how such urban sustainability actions are embedded in complex interactions between public and private actors operating at different levels has not been studied in enough detail. Building upon a multi-level governance approach, this article explores the entanglement and interconnectedness of cities and local governments with actors and institutions at various levels and scales to better capture the potential and limitations of urban policymaking contributing to global sustainability. The article finds that on the one hand cities and their governments are well positioned to engage other actors into a policy dialogue. On the other hand, local authorities face considerable budgetary and institutional capacity constraints, and they heavily rely on support from actors at other governmental levels and societal scales to carry out effective sustainability actions in urban areas