Robert Falkner

Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links

This article discusses private environmental governance at the global level. It is widely acknowledged that corporations play an increasing role in global environmental politics, not only as lobbyists in international negotiations or agents of implementation, but also as actors creating private institutional arrangements that perform environmental governance functions. The rise of such private forms of global governance raises a number of questions for the study of global environmental politics: How does private governance interact with state-centric governance? In what ways are the roles/capacities of states and nonstate actors affected by private governance? Does the rise of private governance signify a shift in the ideological underpinnings of global environmental governance? This article explores these questions, seeking a better understanding of the significance of private environmental governance for International Relations.

Business power and conflict in international environmental politics

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction: Global Firms in International Environmental Politics Business Power and Business Conflict: A Neo-Pluralist Perspective PART TWO: CASE STUDIES Ozone Layer Depletion Global Climate Change Agricultural Biotechnology PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS International Environmental Politics and Business Power: Conclusions and Implications

The political economy of ‘normative power’ Europe: EU environmental leadership in international biotechnology regulation

ABSTRACT This paper examines the transformation of the European Union from a laggard to a leader in the international politics of biotechnology regulation. The emergence of EU leadership in global environmental politics during the 1990s seems to support recent arguments about the distinctive nature of the EU as a ‘normative power’ in international relations. However, as this paper argues, this perspective lacks historical depth and fails to capture tensions between competing principles and conflict among domestic interest groups in Europe. The paper calls for a more critical reading of the normative power argument and identifies shifts in the domestic political economy of agricultural biotechnology as the key factors behind the EUs support for a precautionary international regime on trade in genetically modified organisms.

Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are set to transform the global industrial landscape, but the debate on how to regulate environmental, health and safety risks is lagging behind technological innovation. Current regulatory efforts are primarily focused on the national and regional level, while the international dimensions of nanotechnology governance are still poorly understood and rarely feature on the international agenda. However, with the ongoing globalization of nanosciences and the rapid expansion of international trade in nanomaterials, demand for international coordination and harmonization of regulatory approaches is set to increase. Yet, uncertainty about nanotechnology risk poses a profound dilemma for regulators and policy-makers. Uncertainty both creates demand for and stands in the way of greater international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches. This article reviews the emerging debate on nanotechnology risk and regulatory approaches, investigates the current state of international cooperation and outlines the critical contribution that a global governance approach can make to the safe development of nanotechnologies.

The Influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa

This paper analyzes how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a global regime governing trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is influencing agricultural biotechnology policy choices in developing countries/emerging economies. Through empirical analysis of Mexico, China and South Africa, we examine whether discursive and/or institutional change has followed the negotiation and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in these countries. We find that, although trade and market competitiveness concerns are driving biotechnology policy choices in all three cases, a precautionary biosafety discourse has gained greater legitimacy as a result of the Cartagena Protocol, empowering those domestically who voice such concerns. Related to that, debates and/or decisionmaking processes in this controversial area have become more inclusive in all three countriesan important influence of the Cartagena Protocol.We also find persisting regulatory diversity rather than harmonization of biosafety regulatory frameworks in our three countries, with international trade linkages and domestic politics playing an important mediating role in determining Protocol influence.

The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics

This article reviews and assesses the outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Paris in December 2015. It argues that the Paris Agreement breaks new ground in international climate policy, by acknowledging the primacy of domestic politics in climate change and allowing countries to set their own level of ambition for climate change mitigation. It creates a framework for making voluntary pledges that can be compared and reviewed internationally, in the hope that global ambition can be increased through a process of ‘naming and shaming’. By sidestepping distributional conflicts, the Paris Agreement manages to remove one of the biggest barriers to international climate cooperation. It recognizes that none of the major powers can be forced into drastic emissions cuts. However, instead of leaving mitigation efforts to an entirely bottom-up logic, it embeds country pledges in an international system of climate accountability and a ‘ratchet mechanism’, thus offering the chance of more durable international cooperation. At the same time, it is far from clear whether the treaty can actually deliver on the urgent need to de-carbonize the global economy. The past record of climate policies suggests that governments have a tendency to express lofty aspirations but avoid tough decisions. For the Paris Agreement to make a difference, the new logic of ‘pledge and review’ will need to mobilize international and domestic pressure and generate political momentum behind more substantial climate policies worldwide. It matters, therefore, whether the Paris Agreements new approach can be made to work.

International sources of environmental policy change in China: the case of genetically modified food

Abstract Chinas agricultural biotechnology policy has undergone a profound transformation over the last decade, from a strongly promotional to a more precautionary approach. From the 1980s onwards, China invested heavily in biotechnology development and in the early 1990s emerged as the leading biotech country in the developing world. In the late 1990s, however, it halted the authorization of new genetically modified crops and introduced stringent safety regulations. This paper investigates this policy shift and argues that international factors have played a central role. Two trends, in particular, are identified as key sources of the move towards greater precaution: Chinas ongoing international socialization, particularly in the context of the international scientific debate on biosafety and the negotiations on a biosafety treaty; and the growing globalization of agriculture and trade, which has exposed China to international competitive forces and trade restrictions in food trade. As the case of genetically modified food in China shows, political integration and economic globalization can work together to promote a strengthening of the domestic environmental policy agenda.

A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits and international legitimacy

Gridlock in the multilateral climate negotiations has created growing scholarly and practical interest in the use of minilateral forums. A large variety of climate club proposals have been developed in recent years, which promise more effective bargaining among the main climate powers, better incentives to encourage mitigation efforts and discourage free-riding, and new ways to align international power asymmetries with the interests of the global climate regime. This paper investigates the three dominant rationales that underpin minilateralist proposals. It offers a critical review of the their potential as well as limitations in promoting global climate action. It argues that minilateralism is unlikely to overcome the structural barriers to a comprehensive and ambitious international climate agreement. However, climate clubs can enhance political dialogue in the context multilateral negotiations and provide a more conducive environment for great power bargaining. They can create club benefits that strengthen mitigation strategies by so-called coalitions of the willing and help reduce the dangers of free-riding. And they can help re-legitimate the global climate regime against the background of profound power shifts that have slowed down progress in the multilateral negotiations.

Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions

ABSTRACT At COP21 in Paris, governments reiterated the importance of ‘non-Party’ contributions, placing big bets that the efforts of cities, regions, investors, companies, and other social groups will help keep average global warming limited to well under 2°C. However, there is little systematic knowledge concerning the performance of non-state and subnational efforts. We established a database of 52 climate actions launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit in New York to assess output performance – that is, the production of relevant outputs – to understand whether they are likely to deliver social and environmental impacts. Moreover, we assess to which extent climate actions are implemented across developed and developing countries. We find that climate actions are starting to deliver, and output performance after one year is higher than one might expect from previous experiences with similar actions. However, differences exist between action areas: resilience actions have yet to produce specific outputs, whereas energy and industry actions perform above average. Furthermore, imbalances between developing and developed countries persist. While many actions target low-income and lower-middle-income economies, the implementation gap in these countries remains greater. More efforts are necessary to mobilize and implement actions that benefit the world’s most vulnerable people. Policy relevance Climate actions by non-state and subnational actors are an important complement to the multilateral climate regime and the associated contributions made by national governments. Although such actions hold much potential, we still know very little about how they could deliver in practice. This article addresses this knowledge gap, by showing how 52 climate actions announced at the UN Climate Summit in 2014 have performed thus far. Based on our analysis, we argue that the post-Paris action agenda for non-state and subnational climate action should (1) find more effective ways to incentivize private sector actors to engage in transnational climate governance through actions that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote climate resilience in a tangible manner; (2) identify factors underlying effectiveness, to take appropriate measures to support underperforming climate actions; and (3) address the large implementation gap of climate actions in developing countries.

International Cooperation against the Hegemon: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

America’s retreat from environmental leadership in the early 1990s marks a turning point in environmental diplomacy. Ever since the United States took a backseat role at the 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’, it has repeatedly opposed new environmental treaties that contain binding rules and obligations. Given America’s pre-eminent position in the international political economy the unilateral turn in US foreign policy has come as a blow to ongoing efforts to strengthen global environmental governance. Yet, international environmental policy-making has continued in areas where the US refuses to take on new international commitments as was the case with the Kyoto Protocol, which has entered into force in 2005 despite US withdrawal from the agreement. This chapter investigates another area of international contention, which pitted the US and a small group of agricultural export countries against the large majority of European and developing countries wishing to create internationally binding rules: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the world’s first international treaty regulating the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).