DOCSLIB.ORG

Partnerships” That Raise More Questions Than Answers by Saradha Ramaswamy Iyer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Partnerships” That Raise More Questions Than Answers by Saradha Ramaswamy Iyer B r i e f i n g TWN P a p e r 13 T h i r d W o r l d N e t w o r k www.twnside.org.sg October 2003 “Partnerships” that Raise More Questions than Answers by Saradha Ramaswamy Iyer The World Summit on Sustainable Development's (WSSD's) Type II partnerships were supposed to complement the implementation of internationally agreed commitments. But they have yet to live up to their hype. The new criteria and guidelines for their operation need much more time to settle in place. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is only beginning to come to grips with its new role in this area. The UN system and it's agencies continue to show strong commitment to partnership. However, the business sector seems to be having second thoughts while other stakeholders remain skeptical. More significantly, there has been no corresponding commitment of resources to see the announced initiatives through. 1. Introduction Furthermore, in the run-up to the WSSD, there was widespread recognition that governments by The World Summit on Sustainable Development themselves cannot deliver implementation and (WSSD) was not supposed to re-negotiate the road therefore Johannesburg should play a role in map for sustainability drawn up by the Rio catalysing strong partnerships between Summit in 1992. Instead the hope was that it governments and other actors such as civil society would take account of emerging trends, integrate groups, businesses and inter-governmental fully the social, economic and environmental organisations. pillars of sustainable development and strengthen the implementation of Agenda 21 and WSSD 2. Two types of outcomes outcomes. Based on the above reasoning and early in the The biggest challenge for the WSSD was to find preparatory process, it was determined by the concrete, practical and meaningful ways to Secretariat that there would be two types of address this problem, in open official outcomes from the WSSD, Type I and Type II. acknowledgement that there is a crisis of implementation of the Rio outcomes. In assessing Type I outcomes are the documents negotiated by and reviewing the Rio Summit it was clear that UN Member States. These now include the specific commitments were not followed up with Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable resource allocations and implementation actions. Development and the Plan of Implementation of There was simply no political will. the WSSD. TWN THIRD WORLD NETWORK is a network of groups and individuals involved in bringing about a greater articulation of the needs, aspirations and rights of the people in the Third World and in promoting a fair distribution of world resources and forms of development which are humane and are in harmony with nature. Address: 121-S Jalan Utama, 10450 Penang, MALAYSIA Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159 Fax: 60-4-2264505 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.twnside.org.sg Type II outcomes, on the other hand, are the Later, an explanatory note from the Chairman of voluntary commitments to specific targets or the WSSD Preparatory Committee, Emil Salim of objectives for the implementation of sustainable Indonesia, gave further details saying that only development made by individual governments, partnerships/initiatives that are international in non-governmental actors or by partnerships of scope and reach (i.e., global, regional or sub- governmental and/or non-governmental actors. regional) and those aimed at supporting practical Type IIs were not negotiated in the formal WSSD implementation of Agenda 21 and sustainable preparatory process and do not require consensus development activities in developing countries, in agreement between all UN Member States. particular the least developing countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with From the beginning many civil society groups, economies in transition, would be eligible for including NGOs, indigenous peoples, women’s announcement during the official partnership organisations and trade unions, questioned the events at the Summit. Only those partnerships that move to give official blessing to Type II are new and are developed specifically in the partnerships at a Summit level, especially when context of the WSSD and its goals would feature it became clear that a major goal was to get big at the official events. business on board. There was no framework or rules to evaluate and During informal meetings held during PrepCom monitor Type IIs. At the same time, the last 10 III many questions were raised about the exact years have proven that self-regulation and scope and modalities of Type IIs and their voluntary codes of conduct have failed to ensure relationship to Type Is. In response to the concerns good corporate governance and behaviour. raised by non-governmental organisations and a Moreover, since the private sector has more few delegations a ‘Vice-Chairs’ Summary of the resources and thus influence and power, any Informal Meetings on Partnerships/Initiatives’ ‘partnership’ would inherently be an unequal one. was released in April 2002. This paper clarified Given that the sustainable development record of the following: business belies its rhetoric in most cases, Type IIs l Partnerships are not intended to substitute the could be a Pandora’s Box. strong commitments by governments in Type I outcomes, rather they should contribute to Thus, while cooperation and alliances for translating those political commitments into sustainable development among different actors, action. government and non-government, are abundant l Partnerships are of a voluntary self-organising and can be successful, Type IIs introduce the nature with parameters for their organisation to element of endorsement without accountability. remain as flexible and simple as possible. There were fears that such a development would 4. The Debate further undermine weakening inter-governmental commitments. In the WSSD context, the US for The issue of partnerships became a hotly debated example was openly favouring Type II above Type item on the WSSD’s agenda. Various views were I, and strongly promoted that the UN Commission expressed in the course of the preparatory process on Sustainable Development refocus its work on and at the Summit itself. Type IIs. The UN through its Special Envoy Jan Pronk 3. Type IIs at the WSSD suggested that not everything needs to be negotiated or implemented at the global level. He At the end of PrepCom II in New York in January- proposed that only willing participants united by February 2002, the Secretariat first compiled and shared goals should form consultative groups on published a paper entitled ‘Proposals for sectors without the political constraints of Partnerships/Initiatives to strengthen the requiring full consensus. implementation of Agenda 21’ and suggested that interested parties identify partners and specify The US, one of the biggest proponents, highlighted clear targets, time-tables, monitoring the potential role of the Commission on arrangements, coordination and implementation Sustainable Development in evaluating and mechanisms, and arrangements for systematic replicating partnerships, identifying lessons and predictable funding and for technology learned and facilitating more partnerships. The EU transfer. insisted there be a clear link to sustainable development objectives and that ownerships be Relevant UN agencies had prepared Framework among all partners. Other governments called for Papers to facilitate discussion, provide focus and simple clear guidelines, flexible criteria and catalyse action in the WEHAB areas. There were clarification on funding for partnerships. The G77 presentations by experts and commentaries by at that point was afraid the partnership issue panels of resource persons followed by comments would dominate the debate to the detriment of from delegates. The general feeling among the inter-governmental process and preferred a attendees was that these discussions were wait-and-see attitude. substantive, well moderated and useful. Summaries of these sessions have now been The UNDP outlined five principles for building adopted by the meeting’s main committee and are effective partnerships namely trust, transparency posted on the UN website. However, there was and access to information, shared responsibility, frustration that these discussions occurred as a goal-oriented result-driven objectives and the parallel process with the inter-governmental need to reflect local priorities and help create an negotiations and thus have little or no impact on enabling environment for effective action. UNEP the Type I outcome which is supposed to be the emphasised the need for monitoring and substantive framework for Type IIs. evaluating partnerships. It is interesting that the discussions threw up many Many NGOs recognised that the notion was not areas of actions that are needed by national new and that there were already many examples governments and international institutions, of successful partnerships at the local, national, especially the inter-governmental ones. It regional and even global levels. While showing a reinforced the reality that many gaps left by great deal of interest in partnerships for governments cannot be substituted by Type IIs. implementation, they cautioned that partnerships should not replace government obligations, that Partnerships to Tackle Poverty and they should in fact complement and supplement Environmental Problems: A Critique the fulfilment of governmental commitments. Some groups stressed the need for wide During the Summit process itself
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democratizing Global Environmental Governance?
    European Journal of International Relations http://ejt.sagepub.com Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development Karin Bäckstrand European Journal of International Relations 2006; 12; 467 DOI: 10.1177/1354066106069321 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/467 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Standing Group on International Relations of the ECPR Additional services and information for European Journal of International Relations can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ejt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 12 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/4/467 Downloaded from http://ejt.sagepub.com at OSLO UNIV on October 2, 2008 Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development KARIN BACKSTRAND¨ Lund University, Sweden One of the most pressing problems confronting political scientists today is whether global governance has democratic legitimacy. Drawing on an analysis of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002, this article advances and empirically deploys an ideal-typical model of a new approach to key areas of global governance — ‘stakeholder democracy’. This work is located in the context of the changing practices of global governance, in which concerns about legitimacy, accountability, and participation have gained prominence. Sustainability is an arena in which innovative experiments with new hybrid, pluri-lateral forms of governance, such as stakeholder forums and partnership agreements institutionalizing relations between state and non-state actors, are taking place.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships: Making Them Work for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
    Multi-stakeholder partnerships: Making them work for the Post-2015 Development Agenda By Felix Dodds Senior Fellow, Global Research Institute, University of North Carolina 1 | Page NOTE: This independent study was commissioned by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and prepared by an independent consultant, Mr. Felix Dodds, Senior Researcher, Global Research Institute, University of North Carolina. The views presented do not represent those of the United Nations or any other entity. 2 | Page Executive Summary In September 2015, the United Nations will adopt a new transformative development agenda. It has been agreed in principle that multi-stakeholder partnerships between business, NGOs, Governments, the United Nations and other actors will play an important role in the implementation of the agenda. Since 2000, there has been a plethora of partnerships within and outside the United Nations, some considered effective and making an impact on development but many falling short of delivering results and incurring high transaction costs. Partnerships have been discussed at the United Nations in general terms every other year in the Second Committee of the General Assembly, the informal Partnership Forum of the Economic and Social Council, and in its subsidiary bodies (e.g. Commission on Sustainable Development). However, as the international community transitions from the MDGs to the SDGs, it is important to consider how partnerships should support the new development agenda in the post-2015 era. There is an emerging consensus that partnerships must be aligned with the new agenda and its new goals. They should be streamlined and build on already existing and successful mechanisms and processes, have a monitoring and review mechanism for review and evaluation to determine success.
    [Show full text]
  • ESDN Conference 2012 – Rio+20 and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Policy at the EU and National Level
    June 2012 ESDN Conference 2012 – Rio+20 and its implications for Sustainable Development Policy at the EU and national level 28-29 June 2012, Copenhagen ESDN Office Team Conference Discussion Paper European Sustainable Development Network Authors: Umberto Pisano Andreas Endl Gerald Berger Contact: ESDN Office at the Research Institute for Managing Sustainability Vienna University of Economics and Business Franz Klein Gasse 1, A-1190 Vienna, Austria E: [email protected] T: +43-1-31336-4807 © 2012 European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN) Visit www.sd-network.eu for The European Sustainabel Development Network Basic information on SD (ESDN) is an informal network of public administrators Country profiles and other experts who deal with sustainable develop- Quarterly reports ment strategies and policies. The network covers all Policy briefs 27 EU Member States, plus other European countries. Case studies The ESDN is active in promoting sustainable develop- Conference papers ment and facilitating the exchange of good practices in Workshop papers Europe and gives advice to policy-makers at the 2 European and national level. Getting in touch with us European and national level. Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 4 2. Procedural issues and conference flow ...................................................... 5 3. Global sustainable development governance .............................................. 6 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Princeton University Undergraduate Task Force on Sustainable Development Brooke Kelsey Jack SUMMARY REPORT the International
    Princeton University Undergraduate Task Force on Sustainable Development Brooke Kelsey Jack SUMMARY REPORT The international community has repeatedly acknowledged the need to address the myriad economic, social and environmental problems faced by the planet and its people. Many of these issues are characterized by international or transboundary components that cannot be resolved without the cooperation of multiple sovereign nations. Over the past thirty years, government leaders have repeatedly come together to address these problems, through specific multilateral treaties, international conferences, and the creation of new organizations and agencies for sustainable development. Agreements now exist for almost every environmental issue, yet few of these agreements have been implemented.1 In spite of an impressive amount of activity on the international stage, there is little to show for the three decades of negotiations. The implementation gap between international commitments and positive change on the ground was the focus of the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in September 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Though the Summit sought to move away from negotiation toward realization of already existing goals and identification of institutional and financial requirements, this objective proved easier said than done.2 The official outcomes of the WSSD were notably lacking in the targets and timetables needed to organize implementation. At the Johannesburg Summit, Type II Partnerships, or public-private partnerships, emerged as an alternative to the Summit’s 1 Pamela Chasek, Editor and co-founder, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, interviewed by author, 6 December 2002. 2 United Nations General Assembly, “Ten Year review of progress achieved in the implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.” A/RES/55/199 (New York, N.Y., 5 Feb 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Governments and Policy Networks: Chances, Risks, and a Missing Strategy
    25. Governments and Policy Networks: Chances, Risks, and a Missing Strategy Charlotte Streck1 ___________________________________________________ SUMMARY Government has engaged in a multitude of networks in order to respond in a flexible way to its rapidly changing political environment. A variety of international networks, fulfilling different roles, have been created between governments, governmental agencies, and private actors. This chapter describes and analyses different types of networks in which governments participate, and gives examples of governmental networks, transgovernmental networks, and public-private networks. It also makes a case for a proactive governmental strategy with respect to these new tools of global environmental governance. Recognising both the opportunities (in terms of flexibility and efficiency) and threats (especially with respect to control and legitimacy) of international networks, government has to decide in which initiatives to participate, and how to manage, monitor, and evaluate them. Finally, global networks should be complements (rather than substitutes) of formal national authority. INTRODUCTION For the longest time, international environmental governance, firmly based on treaty law, has been the unchallenged arena of diplomats and negotiators representing the interests of sovereign states. However, times have changed. At the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), alliances 1 The article represents the personal view of the author and should in no way be taken to represent the official view of any institution for which she works or with which she is associated. 1 2 A Handbook of Globalisation and Environmental Policy between businesses and non-governmental groups for the first time took centre stage, when governments agreed to include partnerships between different sectors in the official outcomes of the summit.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    JOURNALOFHale, Mauzerall ENVIRONMENT / THE JOHANNESBURG & DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS 10.1177/1070496504268699 Thinking Globally and Acting Locally: Can the Johannesburg Partnerships Coordinate Action on Sustainable Development? THOMAS N. HALE DENISE L. MAUZERALL At the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, a new multi- stakeholder partnerships initiative was launched. It was hoped that partner- ships would catalyze nongovernmental participation in and additional fund- ing of sustainable development projects around the world. The authors find that at present, however, little partnership financing is coming from new sources; most is coming from governments and less than 1% from the private sector. Guided by empirical findings from the partnerships to date, we propose the following to make the partnership program more effective: (a) establishing a learning network; (b) increasing the transparency of partnerships; (c) increas- ing private sector and small stakeholder participation; (d) establishingan institutional home to support partnerships; and (e) ensuring that the partner- ships are consistent with multilateral priorities. Keywords: sustainable development; partnership; World Summit on Sustain- able Development; Type II; accountability; transparency; interna- tional environmental issues Environmentalists have long championed the idea to think globally, act locally. However, in a series of global conferences—the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa—the international community has reversed that adage by attempting to take global action on primarily local problems. In this article, we differentiate global issues, which affect all nations, and widespread local issues, which, though prevalent in many parts of the world, have primarily localized causes and effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals (Sdgs)
    Approaches to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Approaches to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Open-content version available at: Goals (SDGs) www.guninetwork.org Credits Credits 5 Approaches to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Sustainable GUNi 2018 Development Goals (SDGs). A Publication by the GUNi Group of Experts in SDGs and Higher Education First Edition Barcelona, July 2018 Team Involved in the Preparation of this Publication Coordination Global University Network GUNi President for Innovation (GUNi) Josep A. Planell With the Support of Agència Catalana de Cooperació Editorial Team al Desenvolupament (ACCD) Josep M. Vilalta – GUNi Director Alícia Betts – Head of Projects Graphic Design Victoria Gómez – Project Officer Mètode Marta Cayetano – Communications Officer Printing Mètode Authors Kaustuv Chakrabarti Bharat Dahiya Carme Gual Thomas Jørgensen Akpezi Ogbuigwe Mahesti Okitasari Arnau Queralt Charles W. Richardson Orlando Sáenz Kazuhiko Takemoto Rajesh Tandon Individual or collective authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of the facts, findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in their articles, which do not necessarily reflect the views of the GUNi, UNESCO, the United Nations University (UNU), the Catalan Association of Public Universities (ACUP), or other institutions that support this project. The designations used and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on behalf of GUNi concerning
    [Show full text]
  • World Summit on Sustainable Development Type Ii Partnerships
    389 THE NEW FRONTIER IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TYPE II PARTNERSHIPS Marion Wilson * This article examines an innovative form of environmental governance that was introduced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The "Type II" partnership is a voluntary, multi­stakeholder initiative to achieve sustainable development outcomes. Little has been written on why partnerships have gained prominence in the international environmental arena, and whether they are deserving of this. This article argues that Type II partnerships are a promising solution to sustainable development issues. Despite criticism, the emphasis placed on Type II Partnerships at the World Summit was deserved. The article also explores ways partnerships may be utilised as an effective mechanism for achieving sustainable development. The process surrounding the World Summit on Sustainable Development partnerships, and the guidelines for those partnerships, can be refined to improve their effectiveness. This article highlights issues that influence improvement of partnerships. A number of principles to guide changes made to the partnership process are formulated, and suggestions are made on how partnerships can become as effective as possible. I INTRODUCTION This Summit will be remembered not for the treaties, the commitments, or the declarations it produced, but for the first stirrings of a new way of governing the global commons ­ the beginnings of a shift from the stiff formal waltz of traditional diplomacy to the jazzier dance of improvisational solution­oriented partnerships that may include non­government organizations, willing governments and other stakeholders. Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute 1 * Submitted as part of the LLB(Hons) programme at Victoria University of Wellington.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semantics of Partnership
    #24 30 May 2018 The semantics of partnership by Barbara Adams and Laraine Mills Partnerships for Sustainable Development – Background inclusive and accountable or laissez-faire marketplace? Multi-stakeholder partnerships are not new to the UN agenda. Growing interest in collaboration between Current conventional wisdom has it that partnerships the UN and non-State actors led to the establishment are crucial for the success of the of the 2030 Agenda of the UN Office of Partnerships in 1998 and the UN for Sustainable Development and the achievement of Global Compact Office in 2000, charged with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). attracting and managing partnerships for the UN. However, the UN approach to engaging in stakeholder Since the launch of the Global Compact, global partnerships is rooted in pre-2030 Agenda practices partnerships have been formally considered by and perspectives. It has been shepherded by UN Member States in the General Assembly, with the first offices mainly concerned with resource mobilization GA resolution on the topic adopted in 2001. Since that and often amounts to fitting UN development time, the issue has been on the GA agenda biennially, activities into a pipeline of bankable projects. under the heading “Towards Global Partnerships”. 1 With the exception of this past year (2017) , a report The concept of public-private partnership on the issue by the Secretary-General has been engagement has been pursued on a one-way track, accompanied by a GA resolution.2 designed to adjust the public sphere to leverage the private interests and neglecting the public In his December 2017 report on UN reform, responsibilities of private sector partners.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential for Using the Multistakeholder Network Model To
    The potential for using the multistakeholder network model to develop and deliver partnerships for implementation (‘Type Two Outcomes’) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Discussion paper – DRAFT FOR COMMENT Fanny Calder, Associate Fellow, Sustainable Development Programme, Royal Institute of International Affairs, UK Executive Summary Partnerships for implementation have been identified as one of the key outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). This discussion paper is an output of a project on the potential for using the multistakeholder network model to develop and deliver partnerships for implementation at WSSD. The project is being carried out by the Sustainable Development Programme of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), and is being funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Despite an emerging consensus that partnerships for implementation should be a central part of the Johannesburg outcomes, there is currently a lack of clarity about the process for developing such partnerships in the run up to the Summit. However, processes based on cooperation between stakeholders from governments, businesses and civil society have been developed within the UN system and elsewhere, for issues such as AIDS drugs, vaccination, dams and freshwater. This report explores how the lessons that have been learnt from these processes can be used to develop effective partnerships for implementation at WSSD. The report opens with an overview of the way in which partnership outcomes have been addressed in the WSSD preparatory process, and suggests that there is an emerging consensus that partnership outcomes should deliver the following: S commitment from a wide range of stakeholders to delivering on ambitious, implementation-focused partnership objectives linked to existing international commitments on sustainable development; S where appropriate, a strong focus on working in partnership with developing countries to meet their needs; S an international (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Held in Johannesburg, South Africa from Late August to Early September 2002
    THE OUTCOMES OF JOHANNESBURG: ASSESSING THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Antonio G. M. La Viña, Gretchen Hoff, and Anne Marie DeRose The following text has been accepted for publication in SAIS Review: A Journal of International Affairs as a part of their Winter-Spring 2003 Issue. (Volume XXIII, Number 1). SAIS Review is published by the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University This article analyzes the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, South Africa from late August to early September 2002. Convened ten years after the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, the WSSD was an attempt to move forward with sustainable development efforts by setting implementation strategies, answering questions of accountability, and forming partnerships that go beyond traditional boundaries. The Summit succeeded in achieving some of its goals, such as setting a time-bound sanitation target and recognizing the rights of communities in natural resource management. Yet it also had its share of failures, including the failure to address climate change and to reform global environmental governance. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the extent and diversity of civil society engagement in the process set forth the challenge of overcoming divisions among governments, within civil society, and between governments and civil society to find a path to common solutions. From August 26 to September 4, 2002, eighty-two Heads of State and Government,
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Climate Governance Liliana B
    Transnational Climate Governance Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley Transnational Climate Governance • Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley Introduction Scholars and practitioners have traditionally viewed multilateral agreements negotiated by national governments as the central mechanism for global envi- ronmental governance.1 Today, the governance of global environmental issues is multifaceted, with governance mechanisms taking on a variety of forms beyond multilateral agreements. Moreover, authority is diffuse across levels of social or- ganization and types of actors. This complexity is clearly illustrated in the case of climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol exemplify intergovernmental cooperation. Na- tional governments develop and implement climate policies within a context of national politics and institutions, sometimes under the umbrella of the interna- tional climate change regime, but not always (e.g. the United States). European Union countries function within an additional layer of regional, supranational cooperation that includes climate change along with many other policy areas. Subnational authorities have become active players in the climate change policy arena in a number of countries, often ahead of central governments. In the pri- vate sphere,2 both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations have initiated programs to shape public understandings of climate change and to develop innovative policies and technologies for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. In this manner, climate change exempliªes the multi-actor and multi-level nature of global environmental governance. One area that has received relatively limited systematic attention is the growing trend of transnational cooperation on climate change between sub- national governments, regions, NGOs, corporations, and government agencies.
    [Show full text]