Earth System Governance最新文献

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.

The killing of animals purportedly for conservation generates trade-offs between species conservation and animal protection. Using an Integrative Governance framework, we explain the relationships between these interlinked biodiversity and animal governance systems regarding such “conservation killing” within and between the African and European Unions. Misaligned discourses and institutions, and conflicting power dynamics between actors limit relationships. However, integration has grown moderately, particularly in the EU, due to actors’ shared interest in (“native”) wildlife health and welfare, and through the paradigm of One Health, which stresses the interconnection of animal, environmental and human health. Nevertheless, sustainable conservation practices must also meet societal ethical expectations. Conservation killing falls short in this regard, despite recent growing attention to animal welfare. We suggest greater integration between the governance systems is unlikely to ameliorate this as both are grounded in capitalist anthropocentric structures, which reduce animals to commodities. Transformative governance, instead, entails including animals as actors whose interests warrant protection in order to promote just conservation practices.

Energy communities equip citizens with democratic control over their energy assets, help them capture value locally and create a green, just and decentralized energy system. Such energy communities have grown, replicated their experiences and have been institutionalized in diverse settings. In short, there are plenty of empirical examples of energy communities that have scaled. In this article we explore how varied governance contexts contribute to the scaling of community-based energy governance and in effect the actor constellations of diverse institutional settings. Through a comparative case study analysis based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis, we examined 3 distinct cases: Courant d’Air in Belgium, Coopernico in Portugal and Zuiderlicht in The Netherlands. Each case illustrates a different type of scaling journey and a varied governance context - suggesting that multiple pathways towards scaling exist. Our results show that the mixing of cooperative, state and market logics can potentially result in trade-offs between the democratic potential of energy communities and the efficiencies other logics offer to the energy transition. We argue that an institutional logics framework allows for a clearer understanding of the impact governance settings have on the scalability of energy communities as well as the composition of these countries' energy systems.