Q&A: Harro van Asselt on the UNFCCC and climate governance fragmentation

Two decades ago, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was approved, the case for tackling climate change through an international treaty was clear: Climate change is a global problem that demands a global solution, and the multilateral process could also address the differences in countries’ responsibility for climate change and capacity to deal with it.

Yet today, even as UNFCCC negotiations continue, a wide range of other institutions, partnerships and programmes are tackling climate change issues from specific perspectives (e.g. in business), in specific regions, and within specific sectors or areas of interest.

Some see this fragmentation as a threat to the UNFCCC process, or as a reflection of its failings; in a new paper, however, NORD-STAR postdoctoral fellow Harro van Asselt and colleagues argue for a more positive perspective. How can we “connect the dots”, they ask, to achieve greater benefits?

Below, van Asselt answers questions about the paper’s findings.

Q: What has motivated the fragmentation of climate governance?
HvA: The causes of fragmentation are diffuse. It can be traced back to both (perceived) successes and failures of the UNFCCC process. An example of the former is market-based mechanisms (emissions trading; the Clean Development Mechanism), which triggered various initiatives outside of the UNFCCC. An example of the latter is the technology initiatives in which the Bush administration got involved after its withdrawal from Kyoto.

However, there are other reasons as well, such as the need to move faster than the UNFCCC process because of the urgency of the climate problem, or because focusing on small pieces of the puzzle may lead to faster emission reductions.

Q: Is the fragmentation a measure of the UNFCCC’s success or failure?
HvA: Not necessarily. Fragmentation is also a sign that the climate problem as such is so complex or “wicked” that to expect that one institution can “solve” it is naive. Given the dispersed emission sources and the variety of impacts it is difficult, if not impossible, to govern the problem through one centralized institution. That does not mean, however, that the UNFCCC should not play a major role in the fight against climate change.

Q: Does this fragmentation undermine the UNFCCC?
HvA: It depends on how the various initiatives fit together: do they complement each other (e.g. by tackling different emission sources), or frustrate each other’s goals or principles (e.g. by questioning the principle of differentiation between developed and developing countries)? It is clear that the climate governance landscape will remain fragmented, but the implications for effective climate policy depend on how the relationship between different elements is managed.

Q: You suggest coordination would help. How?
HvA: Coordination could work for a number of issues. For instance, there is a wide variety of international, bilateral, national and subnational initiatives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), some of which use different methodologies, safeguards, etc. Some form of coordination could work well, although of course REDD+ implementation needs to be sensitive to the national and local context. Other areas I think where further coordination could be useful include climate finance and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of mitigation action.

Q: What does your analysis indicate about the future of the UNFCCC?
HvA: The UNFCCC can play a variety of roles, depending on the existing political will. If countries are willing to commit to emission reduction targets, great. Then the UNFCCC could act to some extent as a regulator and obviously has a role to play in MRV.

But given the level of fragmentation in climate governance, I wanted to draw attention to the role of the UNFCCC as facilitator and catalyst of non-UNFCCC initiatives. Whether the UNFCCC should “orchestrate” other initiatives depends on the specific issue. There may be very good reasons to do so in some cases, but it could also slow down non-UNFCCC action in other cases.

Harro van Asselt’s paper, co-authored with Fariborz Zelli, of Lund University, is Connect the Dots: Managing the Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance. It was published in September as Earth System Governance Working Paper No. 25.