Lecture 2 - Actors in Environmental Governance Flashcards
(45 cards)
1
Q
CONCEPT
A
DEFINITION
2
Q
Multilateral Environmental Negotiation
A
- Participating Actors: States and non-states
- Party coordination: Conference of Parties (COPs), Role of chair and secretary, etc. are important
- Consensus required for a decision and effect
- Backbone of treaties is admin law and budgets
- Role of scientific and tech reports
3
Q
Actors in Environmental Governance
A
- States
- International Orgs, regional orgs, subnational orgs
- Non-state actors (environmental NGOs, Businesses/Industry, epistemic communities, etc.)
4
Q
States
A
-Primary actors in formulating international environmental law
-Negotiate, adopt, sign, ratify and implement international treaties, protocols, etc.including MEAs
- Int’l treaties and custom are most important sources of int’l env’l law
5
Q
International Organisations
A
- Created by states
- Intergovernmental in origin but may be granted their own int’l legal personality (e.g. UN)
- Could be specialized international orgs (e.g. WHO, FAO)
- Diffuse and fragmented number of int’l and intergovernmental orgs serve as actors in int’l environmental law
6
Q
Non-State Actors
A
- Epistemic communities: scientific, law, policy
- Environmental NGOs
- Business & industry
- Indigenous peoples
- Youth
- Media
- Religious orgs
7
Q
Framework Approach and Coordination
A
-Start with treat document (usually general) identifying a problem and something to do
- Details re: achieving targets are left to treaty bodies (e.g. COPs, treasury secretariats, etc.). Established as permanent bodies.
- COPs can negotiate protocols and interpret MEA provisions
Advantage = secures state agreement on broad principles first, then delegates details to institutional actors later.
8
Q
Paris Agreement
A
- Result of COP21
- Blends hard and soft law norms to encourage broad participation while ensuring accountability.
- States must submit nationally determind contributions (NDCs) and report regularly on emissions under a combind bototm-up and top-down approach.
- First time we pushed for changes for environment
9
Q
Principles of Good Governance
A
- Adequate exercise of power
- Related to rule of law/democracy
- From anti-corruption to efficiency
- Threshold to evaluate governance processes and outputs/importance on how decisions are made
- Translates into principles and norms; transparency, participation, accountability and observance of human rights, effectiveness, and properness
10
Q
Principle of Participation
A
- Right to Public Participation (procedural and substantive) –> Those who are affected by the decision need to be part of it
- International agreements: Aarhus Convention and Escazu
- Constitutions and domestic law (Brazil and UK have it)
- Only through broad participation can you claim fair and equitable process of DMing
- Participating can be taking part in prelim arrangements, influencing DMers, or taking part in process
11
Q
AARHUS Convention (1998)
A
Established the rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice. Ratified by 46 EU states.
12
Q
AARHUS Convention Article 2
A
- Article 2: Rights of public participation in Dming and access to justice
13
Q
AARHUS Convention Article 4 and 5
A
- Right of aceess to information (right to access info regarding evidence informing a decision into law)
14
Q
AARHUS Convention Article 9
A
- Right of access to justice: When our rights are violated, we need to be able to access justice and courts
15
Q
AARHUS Convention Articles 6-8
A
- Right of public participation in specific activities (6), plans and environmental policies (7) and during prep of regulations (8)
16
Q
Public Participation in Environmnetal Assessments (in the UK)
A
• Goal: Integrate environmental considerations/avoid fragmentation
• Success of impact assessment as a policy technique is undisputed > Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):
o EIA Directive: These directives mandate public consultation in the development of plans, programmes, and projects that may have significant environmental impacts
17
Q
Public Participation in Brazil’s Constitution
A
- Lists expressing what policy areas require public participation
- Perez (2004) defends that principle of participation is implicit under Constitution
18
Q
Public Participation in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCS)
A
- NDCs are climate action plans that countries develop and submit under Paris Agreement every 5 yrs on how it will reduce GHG. So public participation would mean gov’t consults public when developing or updating NDCs
- Article 6 of UNFCCC is about public participation and Article 12 of Paris
- Some countries have incorporated public participation into NDC planning process (DR, Argentina, Peru)
19
Q
Participation and Human Rights Linkage
A
- Participation embodies advancement of human rightsand fosters social inclusion
- Issues: many avenues of oppression that leave some people out of discussion; raises issue of agency and power (who has the voice)
20
Q
Approaches to Participation
A
- Citizen participation can vary from nonparticipation (e.g. therpy, manipulation) to tokenism (informing, consultation and placating) to citizen control (partnership, delegation)
21
Q
Challenges of Participation
A
- Who has the information and data; Who has the loudest voice
- Who has the availability past structural issues (those with most time are most likely to participate but usually not representative of the public)
- Issues of agency and power
22
Q
7 Factors of Agency in Non-State Actors
A
- Agency related to authority
- Recognition is key
- Varies across activities
- Distinct from participation
- Exists at different levels
- Dynamic
- Enables influence
23
Q
Agency
A
Actors with legitimatized ability to influence outcomes
24
Q
Power (5 types of)
A
- Could be symbolic, cognitive, leverage, social and material
- Different combos of power sources
- Power asymmetries arise from diff gov’t profiles, not just resources
- Power enables influence on agenda-setting, dming, and implementing
25
Legitimacy
- Critical for agency-actors, need legit ability to influence
- Stems from recognition by states and non-state actos
- Linked to perceived expertise or authority in specific domains
26
Actor-Network Theory
-a social theory that says everything we do is the result of networks made up of many different "actors" — and those actors aren’t just people (could be person, technology, material, etc.)
- Effects (like climate policy) come from networks and agency is distributed
- Reconsideration of agency - what is it, how it works and who has it
27
Cross-Border Advocacy Networks
- Advocacy networks share resources, knwoledge and support strategies to target influence
- motivated by values rather than by material concerns or professional norms. They form around ethical issues, particularly those involving physical harm and inequality of opportunity
28
Epistemologies of the Global South
The global North epistemology cannot solve the planetary ecological emergency and needs to be deconstructed and decolonised.
- We should put weight on epistemologies of the South as well as North; can't just be narrative of north 'teaching' the south
29
CBDR principle
common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), principle of international environmental law establishing that all states are responsible for addressing global environmental destruction yet not equally responsible.
- Guides Kyoto Protocol ('97) when only Annex 1 countries have emissions caps
30
UNFCC
- 1992 convention
- Venue for states to convene – as the Conference of the Parties (COP) – and negotiate how to achieve Convention's objective of: Stabilizing GHG concentrations at level that would prevent dangeous anthropogenic interference w climate sytstem
- Article 3 = CBDR principle
31
Kyoto Protocol
- Adopted 1997
-Binding, qualified restrictions on GHG emissions for Annex 1 countries (highest income).
- No cap for global south (non-Annex 1) because they're 'developing' so can't restrict emissions.
- Bring in market-based 'flexible mechanisms' to lower decarb implementation costs
- Guided by CBDR principle
32
Result of Kyoto Protocol
- US refused to ratify in 2001 and Canada withdrew so limited coverage left
- But remaining countries formally complied and actually overdelivered on targets; some substantial domestic policy efforts took place especially in EU
- Non-participation by major emitters (US and China) was biggest challenge to its effectiveness and this als discouraged high-income countries from participating in the Protocol's second commitment period (2013-2020)
33
COP15 (Copenhagen 2009)
- Wanted to finalise a new climate agreement (a Kyoto successor)
- Formal negotiations collapsed over whether KP should continue
- Output was only Copenhagen Accord which was foundational step for Paris (made turning point of global temp target below 2C and recognised need for flexible approach to country differentiation)
- Did not lay out specific target %s per country though
34
2015 Paris Agreement (COP21)
- Every country part of it.
- First time a climate treaty establishes a global goal on adaptation (though vague and difficult to operationalise)
- Also has mitigation goal of below 2C, pursuing 1.5C
- Also has goal for finance, recognising that without aligning finance flows, other goals can't be achieved
35
Differing Terminology from Paris to Kyoto
- Still says CBDR but now saying 'in light of national circumstances'
- Bottom-up approach on how to address emissions (countries come in and make own pledges)
- No reference to Annex-1 or Non-Annex 1/ or definition of 'Developed' vs. 'Developing' countries, though does say developed should lead and developing should be part of action too
- Intense debate over legal form --> legally binding treaty with qualified contributions in non-binding form
36
Key Elements of Paris Agreement
- Nationally determined contributions (NDCs)
- Focus on transparency
- Nuanced approach to differentation ('developing' and 'developed' without defining)
- Cooperative approach to ambition raising (meet every 5 years to discuss and 'raise ambition')
- Evolutionary solution
- Global social endeavour (rooted in transparency)
37
UNFCC Constituencies for Non-State Actors
- Built over time of contributing to COP:
- BINGO (business and industry NGOs)
- ENGO (environmental NGOs)
- FARMERS (farmers and agricultural NGOs)
- IPO (indigienous people organisation)
- LGMA (legal gov't and municipal authorities)
- RINGO (research and independent NGOs)
- TUNGO (trade union NGOs)
- WGC (women and gender constitutency)
- YOUNGO (children & youth NGOs)
38
Non-State Actors Engagement in the Framework
- Observers in the process and regonized as actors for shaping law
- Also engage beyond the framework through direct action, campaigning, litigation, lobbying, etc.
39
Youth Activism
- Unprecedented scale of youth environmental activism since 2018
- DIO 'Do it Ourselves' politics (collective action outside formal institutions to influence power holders)
- Current wave is unique in its unprecedented global scale and longevity
40
Summary of Lecture 2
- Actors beyond the state come in may forms
- Some actors have more agency and capacity to influence and frame outcomes
- The hegemony of dominant actors narratives has excluded many actors by delegitimising their voices and perspectives
- Within a transformational governance system more actors need to be included in accountable, legit, and transparent proceses
- Are there sites for more representative participatory processes?
41
Framework Approach used by MEAs
It secures state agreements on broad principles first, then delegates details to institutional actors later
42
Which of the following best describes how "epistemic communities" or expert networks influence international environmental law-making
A. By sharing information amongst themselves that shapes transnational legalization
- Epistemic communities are known for role in shaping understanding and policy approaches through sharing of expert knowledge.
- Reading materials mention RINGOs (Research and Independent Non Governmental Orgs) as having strong role in ‘providing expertise, evaluating consequences, and providing solutions’
- Aligns w epistemic communities sharing information
- They have strong ‘cognifitive power’ associated with knowledge and expertise
- Often operate over national boundaries, contributing to development of environmental laws and norms that transcend individual countries. Aligns w global nature of environmental challenges and governance.
- Contribute to transnational legislation by sharing information b/w themselves to (1) frame issues, (2) develop norms (3) provide scientific basis (4) influence policy makers (5) shape discourse (6) facilitate consensus (7) propose solutions
43
Which combination of power sources is associated with non-state actors having the most influence on agenda-setting and decision-making?
A. Cognitive and social powers
B. Symbolic and social powers
C. Leverage and material powers
D. Cognitive and leverage powers
44
Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) have a strong governance profile in most activity categories, but were surprisingly weak in:
A. Influencing the agenda and policy makers
45
How do treaty bodies like Conferences of the Parties (COPs) contribute to the agency of non-state actors in environmental governance?
C. By developing expertise, fostering scientific know-how, and pushing administrative rule-making.
