Earth System Governance最新文献

Allocation of adaptation aid to the countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change is a topic that has received increasing attention in global climate governance in recent years. Studies have attempted to explain the role of vulnerability as a determinant of adaptation aid using largely quantitative methods and focusing on recipient characteristics with varying results. I argue that we cannot assess the role of vulnerability in allocation decisions without paying attention to the decision-making process itself. This article examines how the allocation of bilateral adaptation aid to developing countries is shaped by donors’ institutional context, consisting of the institutional identity, institutional beliefs and allocation stages. Through a case study of the allocation process of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, I show that these three elements of the institutional context govern how vulnerability is understood and considered in the allocation of adaptation aid.

This commentary reflects on the first Global Stocktake (GST) under the Paris Agreement on climate change to offer insights for advancing climate actions and informing future GST cycles. The first GST, which concluded at COP28 in 2023, demonstrates the vital importance of a comprehensive, balanced, and inclusive approach to multilateral climate action. The GST's call to transition away from fossil fuels is an important political achievement. Yet, the GST outcome also reveals gaps, shortcomings, and potential dangers ahead. Future climate negotiations, we argue, would benefit from a more integrated, holistic perspective, and more nuanced balancing of ambition and implementation. More needs to be done to protect human rights, increase loss and damage funding, go beyond technological solutions, and address gender-differentiated consequences of climate change. Moreover, a great deal of work, including by nonstate actors, will be required to ensure the first GST translates into real action on the ground.

The integration or mainstreaming of biodiversity targets in sectoral policies and plans (BPI) is considered necessary for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Scientific research on the actual performance of BPI is rather recent and fragmented. Based on a coding scheme, we systematically analyse international empirical BPI studies published in 43 international peer-reviewed journal papers. We show that, so far, overall levels of BPI are low, reflected in too abstract targets, add-on biodiversity policies not targeting the driving forces of biodiversity loss, and insufficient resources made available to pursue biodiversity recovery. Joint planning processes, the revision of policies for consistent and coherent incentives, and adaptive learning are identified as central factors for improving BPI, but considerable barriers in these areas undermine progress in BPI. A change in institutional settings seems necessary to provide more favourable conditions for BPI, including the assignment of less voluntary responsibilities for biodiversity recovery.

This study articulates five dimensions of territorial governance (social capital, leadership, transparency, accountability, socioenvironmental innovations, and commercialization routes) to construct a tripartite typology that helps explain the diverse sustainable transitions of small-scale fisheries in specific territorial contexts. The types are: 1) participative-inclusive governance expressed in solid institutions dedicated to environmental conservation; 2) exclusive-conflictive governance which generates institutions that are fragile for environmental conservation; and 3) transitional governance toward inclusion and responsible fishing, seen in communities that are implementing social and organizational changes to reduce overexploitation of fishing resources. Intensive fieldwork was conducted in localities devoted to spiny lobster fishing along the coast of Quintana Roo. We also held 106 interviews with key actors in governance. Results show that articulating intra- and extra-territorial networks is vitally important in developing the kinds of socioenvironmental innovations that can help local fishermen respond to the multiple environmental, economic, and political contingencies that affect their territories. We conclude that it is necessary to articulate institutional changes on various territorial scales to propel sustainable transitions that are realistic and feasible for small-scale fishers in marginalized communities in countries of the Global South.

The global planetary health equity (PHE) governance architecture can shape government responses to the interrelated challenges of the climate crisis, economic inequality, and poor health. The structure of this architecture has yet to be examined. Using network analysis, we provide the first mapping of the PHE topology and show that the PHE governance architecture is highly centralized and dominated by economic governance organizations.

The term “climate engineering” is an ambiguous label for two categories of technologies for mediating global warming, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). Whether CDR and SRM should be grouped together under a common umbrella term, or whether they should be treated as two disparate problems in need of disparate solutions, has long been a matter of debate. This paper first provides an empirical analysis of disaggregation. Topic modelling the scientific literature on climate engineering, I highlight a trend towards disaggregation driven by growth in the specialized literature on CDR. Second, I explore inconsistencies in the theoretical rationale for disaggregation and challenges in its practical implications. Third, I elaborate on the theoretical and practical utility of maintaining an integrated concept of climate engineering for highlighting the challenges of governing large-scale, hypothetical technological interventions into the climate system subject to deep uncertainties and mitigation deterrence.

Mainstream climate policy discourse obscures power disparities between those who contribute the most to climate change and those who are hit the hardest, particularly in discussions regarding the appropriate targets for intervention, including behavioral change. We reflect and critique this obfuscation of power in policy debates, and as a corrective, we identify actors with high levels of climate responsibility and high capacity for mitigation and adaptation, and that intersect different scales of social organization. We visually map these overlaps to spur productive dialogue and generate new policy ideas to target the worst violators first and encourage action for others where it is rooted in what capacities they have. We include examples of how power disparities reflect and produce complex climate injustices, underscoring the importance of conceptualizing power through a multiscalar lens for fair and effective climate policy.