Presentation based on the report Climate Change Clubs and the UNFCCC. The report may be downloadede here: http://fores.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ClimateClubsAndTheUNFCCC-FORES-Study-2013-3.pdf

1. CLIMATE CLUBS AND THE UNFCCC
complement, bypass or conflict?
Oscar Widerberg, FORES Frukostseminarium, Stockholm, 28 November 2013.

2. The global climate governance architecture
Bi-lateral
initiatives
Private climate
initiative
UNFCCC
CBD
Montreal Protocol
CLIMATE
CLUBS
Other UN (e.g.
UNSEC)
Sub-national
action
Trade
institutions
(WTO)
2

3. Examples of clubs
 G20
 Major Economies Forum
(MEF)
 Clean Energy Ministerial
(CEM)
 Energy+
CLIMATE
CLUBS
 Climate and Clean Air
Coalition (CCAC)
 LEDS Partnership
 Global Bioenergy Partnership
 Etc...
3

4. Research question
Are climate clubs conducive to the UNFCCC?
4

5. Research approach
 17 Climate clubs*
 5 Assessment criteria
• Core norms
> Caps on GHG emissions
> Common but differentiated responsibilities
• Participation of major emitters
• Goverance gaps
• Implementing UNFCCC agenda
 Qualitative scoring
* from Weischer et al, 2012
5

6. The results
6

7. State clubs
 Exclusive groups based on wealth and
• G8
importance
• G20
 Large potential to address climate issues
• Major Economies
Forum (MEF)
 Risk of treating climate change as an ad hoc
agenda item
 Major Economies Forum (MEF) the most
relevant and clearly conducive to the UNFCCC
 No conflictive relation
7

8. Energy clubs
 Many energy clubs, similar goals
• IEA Multilateral
Technology
Agreements
• REEEP
• Spread renewable energy
• Increase energy efficiency
• Capacity building, information, analysis
• REN 21
 Climate change is but one goal
• Energy+
 Differences in how to what extent they align
• CEM
• APP
themselves with UNFCCC
 No conflictive relations
8

9. Implementation clubs
 Diverse group in terms of aim, members,
• CSLF
• Global Bioenergy
Partnership
• REDD+ Partnership
• Global Methane
Partnership
• GGGI
affiliation with UNFCCC, capacity
 Biofuels, CCS, Green economy, REDD+, Low
Emission Development Strategies, Monitoring
Reporting and Verificaiton
 REDD+, LEDS, MRV strong links with the
UNFCCC
• M-MRV
 CCAC promising bridging function?
• LEDS GP
 No conflicting
• CCAC
9

10. Lessons learned
1. While clubs aren’t challenging the current
goverance architecture, some are more
conducive to the UNFCCC than others
2. No conflict found, only contender could be
the state clubs, however, these often treat
climate as an ad hoc agenda item
3. General shift in narrative towards more
flexibility (e.g. from ”targets and timetables” to
”pledge and review”)
4. The implications of the shift in narrative are
highly uncertain
10

11. Policy implications
 We are positive to clubs
 Clubs can create ”enabling conditions” on a
domestic level to reach international agreement
 There is a UNFCCC paradox
11

12. Thanks!
oscar.widerberg@vu.nl
12