Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (96) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (49)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Doctoral Thesis (8)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (7)
- Master's Thesis (4)
- Other (2)
- Report (2)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (4)
- governance (4)
- Germany (3)
- Integration (3)
- Politische Bildung (3)
- World Bank (3)
- crisis (3)
- Australia (2)
- China (2)
- Coordination (2)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (96) (remove)
Kollaborative, partizipative Instrumente zur Krisenbekämpfung haben in den letzten Jahren zunehmend an Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist der #WirVsVirus-Hackathon, der als Reaktion auf die COVID-19-Pandemie durchgeführt wurde und über 28.000 Teilnehmer:innen erreichte. Bislang wurden die Auswirkungen solch groß angelegter, kollaborativer Ansätze zur Krisenbewältigung auf staatliches Krisenmanagement nur selten untersucht. Diese Studie analysiert den Hackathon und die daraus entstandenen Projekte aus der Perspektive des Open Governance-Paradigmas. Auf Grundlage von neun Experteninterviews untersuchen wir, wie sich digitale Open Governance auf die Regierungsfähigkeit und Legitimität in Krisenzeiten auswirkt. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass digitale Open Governance zur Leistungsfähigkeit und Legitimität staatlichen Handelns in Krisenzeiten beitragen kann, da solche Projekte eine breite und diverse Teilnehmerschaft mobilisieren und in kurzer Zeit bürgerzentrierte, nutzbare Lösungen für krisenbezogene Probleme entwickeln können. Dem stehen allerdings Zweifel an der langfristigen Beständigkeit der Projekte, ihrer Skalierbarkeit, sowie Risiken hinsichtlich der Legitimität und Rechenschaftspflicht entgegen.
Energy system models are advancing rapidly. However, it is not clear whether models are becoming better, in the sense that they address the questions that decision-makers need to be answered to make well-informed decisions. Therefore, we investigate the gap between model improvements relevant from the perspective of modellers compared to what users of model results think models should address. Thus, we ask: What are the differences between energy model improvements as perceived by modellers, and the actual needs of users of model results? To answer this question, we conducted a literature review, 32 interviews, and an online survey. Our results show that user needs and ongoing improvements of energy system models align to a large degree so that future models are indeed likely to be better than current models. We also find mismatches between the needs of modellers and users, especially in the modelling of social, behavioural and political aspects, the trade-off between model complexity and understandability, and the ways that model results should be communicated. Our findings suggest that a better understanding of user needs and closer cooperation between modellers and users is imperative to truly improve models and unlock their full potential to support the transition towards climate neutrality in Europe.
REDD+ and leakage
(2021)
A corporate appetite for greenhouse gas reduction from nature-based solutions, in general, and REDD+, in particular, is driving a rapidly growing voluntary carbon market. The interest to invest in solutions that avoid or reduce deforestation holds the potential to significantly support national efforts to achieve the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals. However, controversy over leakage coupled with confusion and insufficient understanding of spill-over and displacement effects risk holding back necessary investments. This article seeks to shed light on different concepts surrounding leakage, including underlying dynamics and possible solutions on how to address them. In doing so, it makes the case for integrating avoided deforestation projects into national REDD+ strategies and highlights the need for a multi-level and multi-actor approach towards REDD+. Leakage occurs at all levels of implementation of REDD+ activities, at the project, programme and policy level, and both within and beyond national boundaries. Local leakage can largely be controlled through project design that analyses and addresses the proximate causes of leakage and underlying drivers, however, leakage is more difficult to avoid at the programme or policy level. Market leakage is particularly complex and harder to manage, but can – to a certain extent – be modelled and accounted for. Successful REDD+ efforts will combine demand-side measures with national or jurisdictional programmes that support governance reforms and integrate local investments in nature-based solutions and avoided deforestation projects.
Key policy insights
Emissions leakage is a ubiquitous phenomenon in climate mitigation that occurs at all levels of implementation. However, it is of particular concern in the case of REDD+, where reduced deforestation in one geographical area can lead to an increase in forest loss in another area.
Leakage has to be managed and monitored at different scales: locally through avoided deforestation projects that address local drivers of deforestation; nationally through well-designed REDD+ policies; and internationally, among others, through demand-side standards in countries importing forest-risk commodities.
Larger-scale programmes that link government interventions with efforts to eliminate deforestation from commodity supply chains, conservation efforts and avoided deforestation projects can limit leakage while helping to integrate various conservation and financing strategies.
‘Nesting’ of avoided deforestation projects into larger REDD+ programmes, at sub-national or national scale, allows for the integration of greenhouse gas accounting across different scales of implementation.
While the intergovernmental climate regime increasingly recognizes the role of non-state actors in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement (PA), the normative linkages between the intergovernmental climate regime and the non-state dominated 'transnational partnership governance' remain vague and tentative. A formalized engagement of the intergovernmental climate regime with transnational partnerships can increase the effectiveness of partnerships in delivering on climate mitigation and adaptation, thereby complementing rather than replacing government action. The proposed active engagement with partnerships would include (i) collecting and analyzing information to develop and prioritize areas for transnational and partnership engagement; (ii) defining minimum criteria and procedural requirements to be listed on an enhanced Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action platform; (iii) actively supporting strategic initiatives; (iv) facilitating market or non-market finance as part of Article 6 PA; and (v) evaluating the effectiveness of partnerships in the context of the enhanced transparency framework (Article 13 PA) and the global stocktake (Article 14 PA). The UNFCCC Secretariat could facilitate engagement and problem solving by actively orchestrating transnational partnerships. Constructing effective implementation partnerships, recording their mitigation and adaptation goals, and holding them accountable may help to move climate talks from rhetoric to action.
Over the last three years, corporate interest in voluntary carbon markets has almost tripled, and this trend has seemed to resist the COVID-19 economic fallout. If managed well, this market has the potential to become a very significant driver of mitigation action, in particular in developing countries, which supply the majority of voluntary carbon offsets. Robust standards and rules can overcome concerns that voluntary carbon markets could lead to company greenwashing and undermine the goals of the Paris Agreement. On the contrary, voluntary corporate investments can encourage more ambitious government climate action, and encourage governments to make more ambitious pledges under the Paris Agreement. Multisectoral mitigation partnerships can ensure the complementarity of public and private action and support policy alignment and investments in priority sectors and regions.
From laggards to leaders
(2021)
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change embraces the participation of non-state actors in a separate governance track – the ‘Non-state actor zone for global action’ (nazca) – that runs alongside the formal track of unfccc negotiations and the implementation of the Paris Agreement by State Parties through ‘nationally determined contributions’. unfccc Secretariat is entrusted with orchestrating non-state global and transnational initiatives, partnerships and networks. The involvement of non-state actors in the implementation of the Paris Agreement helps to address an action gap by countries that are unable or unwilling to implement ambitious ndcs.
However, the increased prominence of initiatives driven by non-state actors also increases their direct and indirect influence on processes and rules which raises a number of questions with regards to the legitimacy of action and the democratic deficit of the global climate regime. Balancing legitimacy with effectiveness requires non-state initiatives to ensure transparent and inclusive governance, and accountability towards progress against their goals and pledges.
Despite its encouragement towards private initiatives, the Paris Agreement creates surprisingly little regulatory space for non-state actors to gain hold. Neither are there measures that would link ndcs to nazca initiatives, nor are functional requirements such as transparency or reporting extended to non-state initiatives. While the Paris Agreement marks an important step towards harnessing private sector ability and ambition for climate action, more remains to be done to create a truly enabling framework for private action to strive and complement public efforts to address climate change.
Effectiveness
(2021)
International organizations (IOs) experience significant variation in their decision-making performance, or the extent to which they produce policy output. While some IOs are efficient decision-making machineries, others are plagued by deadlock. How can such variation be explained? Examining this question, the article makes three central contributions. First, we approach performance by looking at IO decision-making in terms of policy output and introduce an original measure of decision-making performance that captures annual growth rates in IO output. Second, we offer a novel theoretical explanation for decision-making performance. This account highlights the role of institutional design, pointing to how majoritarian decision rules, delegation of authority to supranational institutions, and access for transnational actors (TNAs) interact to affect decision-making. Third, we offer the first comparative assessment of the decision-making performance of IOs. While previous literature addresses single IOs, we explore decision-making across a broad spectrum of 30 IOs from 1980 to 2011. Our analysis indicates that IO decision-making performance varies across and within IOs. We find broad support for our theoretical account, showing the combined effect of institutional design features in shaping decision-making performance. Notably, TNA access has a positive effect on decision-making performance when pooling is greater, and delegation has a positive effect when TNA access is higher. We also find that pooling has an independent, positive effect on decision-making performance. All-in-all, these findings suggest that the institutional design of IOs matters for their decision-making performance, primarily in more complex ways than expected in earlier research.