Climate negotiators’ and scientists’ assessments of the climate negotiations

Climate negotiation outcomes are difficult to evaluate objectively because there are no clear reference scenarios. Subjective assessments from those directly involved in the negotiations are particularly important, as this may influence strategy and future negotiation participation. Here we analyze the perceived success of the climate negotiations in a sample of more than 600 experts involved in international climate policy. Respondents were pessimistic when asked for specific assessments of the current approach centered on voluntary pledges, but were more optimistic when asked for general assessments of the outcomes and usefulness of the climate negotiations. Individuals who are more involved in the negotiation process tended to be more optimistic, especially in terms of general assessments. Our results indicate that two reinforcing effects are at work: a high degree of involvement changes individuals’ perceptions and more optimistic individuals are more inclined to remain involved in the negotiations

Mitigating and Exacerbating Climate Shocks to the Nexus

This chapter explores how responses to nexus shocks can help reduce impacts or make them worst. It draws on findings from five co-production workshops with the UK Met Office, Atkins, Chatham House, Lloyds of London and Willis Re, Cambridge Cleantech and LDA Design, to assess the factors that exacerbate and mitigate climate shocks to the food, energy, water, environment nexus and subsequent impacts. These are especially important to consider, as they enable opportunities for lessons learnt and better and more resilient responses to nexus shocks in future. However, these are often inadequately explored, and more is needed to ensure decision-making remains relevant and aligned with the needs of stakeholders affected by nexus shocks, when dealing with the complex nature of these shocks

The Legitimacy of International Institutions among Rising and Established Powers

The expectation that state voice drives perceptions of the legitimacy of international institutions is a common theme in academicscholarship and policy discourse on global power shifts. This article tests this expectation empirically, using novel andunique survey data on legitimacy perceptions toward eight international institutions among political and societal elites in sixcountries, comprising both rising and established powers. The article finds only limited support for a link between a state’svoice in an international institution and elite perceptions of legitimacy. Differences in formal state representation are onlypartly reflected in patterns of perceived legitimacy across the six countries. In addition, there is no evidence at the individuallevel that assessments of state voice shape elites’ perceptions of institutional legitimacy. Instead, considerations of good governancebest predict whether elites perceive of international institutions as more or less legitimate. These findings suggestthat only institutional reforms which are seen to favor general qualities of good governance, and not narrow demands forstate voice, are likely to be rewarded with greater legitimacy

Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change

This year (2015) marks the 21st formal anniversary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in December a new climate treaty is expected to be reached. Yet, the UNFCCC has not been successful in setting the world on a path to meet a target to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels(1). Meanwhile, other forums, such as the G20 and subnational forums, have increasingly become sites of climate change initiatives(2-6). There has, however, so far been no systematic evaluation of what forums climate change policymakers and practitioners perceive to be needed to effectively tackle climate change. Drawing on survey data from two recent UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), we show that there exists an overall preference for state-led, multilateral forums. However, preferences starkly diverge between respondents from different geographical regions and no clear alternative to the UNFCCC emerges. Our results highlight difficulties in coordinating global climate policy in a highly fragmented governance landscape.Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council [421-2011-1862]; Formas [2011-779]</p

Transparency in climate finance after Paris: Towards a more effective climate governance framework

The Paris Agreement charts a new course for measuring, reporting, verification (MRV) of State obligations with the intensification of the emphasis on the criterion of transparency. This is, in part, responsive to modern debates in regards to environmental law generally and climate law in particular. Transparency is crucial to the success or failure of climate mitigation and adaption regimes because climate governance is intimately connected to the ideals of deliberative democracy, public participation, and the rule of law. The Paris Agreement thus presents a ground-breaking and important point in time for both developed and developing States. Aligned with this requirement is the desire to increase the amount and flow of ‘climate finance’ from developed to developing states. The associated need for transparency in funding flows has been raised in part through the accusations of misused or inadequate funds, ‘tied’ funding and double counting. Though there are new informational requirements placed on states in the Paris Agreement, they also present considerable practical challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the principle of transparency in climate finance and to chart the direction of the associated informational requirements in light of the measures agreed at Paris