Sebastian Oberthür

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance

The United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in June is an important opportunity to improve the institutional framework for sustainable development. Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earths sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.

EU Leadership in International Climate Policy: Achievements and Challenges

Climate change has taken centre stage in European and international politics. Since the second half of the 1980s, the EU has established itself as an international leader on climate change and has considerably improved its leadership record. The Union has significantly enhanced both its external representation and its internal climate policies. However, implementation and policy coherence, coordination of EU environmental diplomacy, an evolving international agenda, EU enlargement, and a still precarious EU unity remain major challenges. Shifts in underlying driving forces and advances of EU domestic climate and energy policies nevertheless support the expectation that the EU will remain a progressive force in international climate policy for some time.

The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions

This article develops a conceptual framework for the systematic analysis of the interaction between international institutions as a first step towards building a theory of international interaction. It examines how international institutions may exert causal influence on each others development and effectiveness and suggests that four general causal mechanisms can elucidate the distinct routes through which influence travels from one institution to another. Institutional interaction can thus rely on transfer of knowledge, commitments established under an institution, behavioural effects of an institution, and functional linkage of the ultimate governance targets of the institutions involved. The article also puts forward hypotheses about the likely effects of specific types of institutional interaction for governance within the international system. The causal mechanisms and types of interaction are mutually exclusive models that help analyse real-world interaction situations. They may also serve as a basis for the systematic analysis of more complex interaction situations.

The architecture of the global climate regime: a top-down perspective

This article argues that a legally binding, multilateral agreement is a necessary condition for achieving the highest levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions consistent with limiting warming to below either 2°C or below 1.5°C. Clear legally binding commitments within a multilaterally agreed process with strong legal and institutional characteristics are needed to give countries the confidence that their economic interests are being fairly and equally treated. Common accounting rules are needed for comparability of effort, and in order to protect environmental integrity, to demonstrate transparency, for effective monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of emissions and actions, and to facilitate and support a strong international carbon market. Securing full implementation will depend, in part, on the strength of an agreements compliance mechanism. The Copenhagen Accord, by itself, represents a quintessential ‘bottom-up’/‘pledge and review’ approach. It is open to interpretation whether the Accord can become a stepping stone on the way to strengthening the legally binding, multilateral framework to fight climate change, building on both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, or whether it will lead to the unravelling and fragmentation of all that has been built up to date. Legal architecture choices made in 2010 and beyond are likely to be determinative.

Introduction: Assessing the EU’s Performance in International Institutions – Conceptual Framework and Core Findings

Abstract This article introduces the analytical framework of the collection on the performance of the EU in international institutions and summarizes its main findings. We focus on the role of the EU in the decision-making within international organizations and regimes as a major locus of global governance. We suggest unpacking the concept of EU performance into four core elements: effectiveness (goal achievement); relevance (of the EU for its priority stakeholders); efficiency (ratio between outputs accomplished and costs incurred); and financial/resource viability (the ability of the performing organization to raise the funds required). Based on the case studies of the collection, the findings presented in the second part of the article relate to the identified core elements of performance with a particular emphasis on the dimensions of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘relevance’. Most notably, the EU appears, on balance and over the past two decades, to have become much more relevant for its member states when acting within international institutions. Moreover, the findings highlight four particular factors explaining EU performance in international institutions: the legal framework conditions (including the relevant changes that the Lisbon Treaty has brought about), domestic EU politics, the status of relevant EU legislation and policies, and the international context.

Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate

The international treaties for the protection of the ozone layer and the global climate are closely related. Not only has the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozone layer served as a useful example in developing the international climate regime, but policies pursued in both issue areas influence each other. This paper gives an overview of the many ways in which both treaty systems are linked functionally and politically. It investigates, in particular, the tension that has arisen with respect to the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases and the potential for drawing on the experience under the Montreal Protocol regarding data reporting and policy design on fluorinated greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The potentials for enhancing synergy in these areas are explored, and related options discussed. Some initiatives for exploiting these potentials are already underway, aiming in particular at enhancing learning and exchanging of information. However, political choices concerning some of the issues willeventually need to be made, if action at the international level is to contribute to their solution.

Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto Protocol

In response to Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have begun to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international aviation and shipping. However, neither ICAO nor IMO have taken any effective action on the issue yet and progress can be characterised as slow. The lack of action has so far not been made up for by measures within the climate change regime or by individual countries. An important motivation for the efforts of ICAO and IMO so far has been the potential regulatory competition with the climate change regime. However, given the lack of political will to act on the issue within the latter, this motivation has not been very forceful. Against this backdrop, I argue that there are in particular three options for furthering progress within ICAO and IMO, namely (1) enhancing the threat of regulation of GHG emissions from international transport under the climate change regime; (2) undertaking unilateral domestic action by various countries (in particular the EU); and (3) furthering a learning process within ICAO and IMO. Furthermore, a closer coordination of efforts under ICAO, IMO and the climate change regime could facilitate and accelerate progress.

Clustering of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Potentials and Limitations

The concept of clustering of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), i.e. the integration of groups of MEAs or parts thereof, has acquired prominence in recent discussions about reforming international environmental governance. Understood as a continuing process, clustering of MEAs aims at advancing the ongoing process of integrating the elements of this system more systematically and dynamically. This paper proceeds in three steps. First, it demonstrates that a distinction needs to be made between clustering of organisational elements of MEAs and their functions, since the conditions and the effects of their integration differ significantly. Second, it argues that – in contrast to several existing approaches that seek to build clusters starting from similarities in one dimension – any attempt to integrate elements of MEAs needs to be based upon the analysis of a range of factors that influence the prospects of such integration (including overlap of membership and issues, practical feasibility, legal obstacles, and functional requirements). Third, the article contrasts the main potential benefits of a clustering of MEAs, namely efficiency gains and an increase in the coherence of international environmental governance, with the main challenges of international environmental policy, namely reaching agreement, implementing such agreement effectively and preventing/managing inter-institutional conflict. While clustering cannot be expected to make a significant direct contribution to addressing these challenges, it has a potential to economise and enhance the system of international environmental governance with positive indirect effects promoting better international environmental protection in the longer term.

The European Union’s Performance in the International Climate Change Regime

Abstract The performance of the European Union (EU) in international climate policy improved significantly over much of the 1990s and 2000s with respect to goal achievement (effectiveness) and relevance. However, the failure of the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 represented a major backlash for the EU. This article argues that internal factors – including in particular the development of internal climate policy – have mostly enhanced the EU’s performance conditions, but can hardly account for the Copenhagen backlash. In contrast, situational and structural changes in the international configuration of climate politics first supported and then significantly impeded a good EU performance in the 2000s. Overall, distinguishing systematically between EU internal factors that are under the direct control of the EU itself and external conditions on which EU influence is more limited allows us to identify the evolution of the external political ‘environment’ of international EU leadership on climate change, and the failure of the EU to adapt its strategy timely to this evolving environment, as major forces underlying the Copenhagen backlash.

Global Climate Governance after Cancun: Options for EU Leadership

One year after the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the next conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol in December 2010 adopted the so-called Cancun Agreements. Thereby, the Cancun conference succeeded in keeping the UN climate process alive and averting serious damage to multilateralism more broadly. However, the Cancun Agreements fall seriously short of providing for effective action on climate change. The current weakness of the international framework reinforces the rationale for strengthening domestic EU climate policies. It also requires a further rethinking of the EUs international leadership strategy.