Presentation of the online visualisation of the UN climate regime, launched at The Hague Institute, June 2015. The map: http://www.climateregimemap.net is a decision tool for researchers, policymakers and the public.

1. Public Launch: Interactive
International Climate Regime Map
Tim Cadman
Institute for Ethics Governance and Law
Griffith University
Presentation at The Hague Institute, June 22, 2015
Integrity, governance assessment and
mapping

2. Publications
Quality-of-governance
standards for carbon
emissions trading:
Developing REDD+
governance through a
multi-stage, multi- level and
multi-stakeholder approach
IGES, USQ, Griffith
University – UNU-IEGL
(December 2015)
Climate Change and
Global Policy Regimes:
Towards Institutional
Legitimacy
Palgrave-Macmillan –
IPE Series
(April 2013)
Quality and legitimacy of
global governance: case
lessons from forestry.
London and Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan,
International Political
Economy Series
(March 2011)
Ethical Values and
the Integrity of the
Climate Change
Regime: Ashgate Law,
Ethics and Governance
Series
(Forthcoming 2015)

3. Contents
3
• The policy implications of climate change
• Explanation of research
• Conceptualising institutional integrity
• Understanding governance
• Research methods and results
• Governance and integrity
• Mapping the climate regime

4. Background: Policy implications of climate change
• Human induced climate change has raised the temperature by 10C
• Likely to reach 4-60C by the end of the century
• Convention signatories recognised in 2009 a rise above 20C would result in
runaway climate change
• Current levels of CO2 emissions are at 5t per person, with total emissions of
about 36 billion tonnes
• To keep to the 20C, emissions will have decline to something around 1.2-1.5
tonnes per capita by the 2050, given population increases
• According to recent data, US emissions per capita in 2012 were 16-17 tonnes
per person
• Dramatic “deep decarbonisation” of energy systems to stay at 20C
– It would be “complete irresponsibility” if the effort were not made
– United States cutting the per capita emissions by a factor of ten
• worldwide effort to accelerate progress on low carbon energy systems and
high efficiency is essential
• Unlikely that the Parties to the Convention are on a path to negotiate such an
outcome at Paris at COP 21
• Politics may drive governments towards a limited, not a deep, agreement
• Countries need to put forward meaningful strong pathways of deep to keep
20C, based on the best science to determine the allowable carbon budget to
keep within that limit (Pachauri 2014; Sachs 2014; SDSN 2014)
4

5. Explanation of research
• In 2014, the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law
(IEGL) was the recipient of a three-year grant from the
Australian Research Council, Global Carbon Integrity:
Applying integrity systems methodology to the ‘global
carbon crisis’
– adapt National Integrity Systems Assessment (NISA)
methodology to the global carbon integrity system (GCIS) as
it currently and potentially operates; and
– to explore its relationship to the governance and integrity
mechanisms being developed to achieve carbon mitigation
and other sustainable development goals
• The specific project aim for this presentation
– Examine the integrity of the current climate negotiations
5

6. Explanation of research
• In 2014, the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (IEGL) was the
recipient of a three-year grant from the Australian Research Council,
Global Carbon Integrity: Applying integrity systems methodology to the
‘global carbon crisis’
– adapt National Integrity Systems Assessment (NISA) methodology to the
global carbon integrity system (GCIS)
– as it currently and potentially operates and
• to explore its relationship to the governance and integrity mechanisms being
developed to achieve carbon mitigation and other sustainable development goals
• The specific aims
– Describe and map the GCIS
– Identify gaps, weaknesses and non-collaboration in GCIS
– Examine the integrity of the current climate negotiations & 2020 legally
binding international climate instrument
– Provide suggestions as to how the GCIS can be improved
– Develop conceptually the NISA methodology
– Refine and apply it to ‘Global Sustainable Development Integrity System’
(GSDIS) as a ‘meta-integrity system’
6

7. Institutional integrity
7

8. 1. Conceptual overview: terminology
• Public Institutional Justification: what the institution’s members and
representatives use to justify the institution and to show the public it
deserves their support. The purpose of the Convention, for example,
according to the UNFCCC website, is to “Prevent ‘dangerous’ human
interference with the climate system”
• Context integrity: the external institutional environment possesses
ongoing qualities that promote the institution acting in accord with
its PIJ.
• Coherence-integrity: the institution has qualities that promote its
acting in accord with its PIJ. If high, the institution possesses integrity.
• Consistency-integrity: the activities and their effects accord with the
institution’s PIJ. This measure is the institution’s ‘consistency-
integrity’ in that case/period, which tells us whether the institution
acts with integrity.
• Full integrity: requires consistency-integrity over the institution’s acts
and coherence-integrity over the institution’s internal constitution. It
possesses integrity constitutively and acts with integrity.)
8

9. 2.Institutional integrity dimensions
• ‘Integrity system’: Together the internal qualities of the
institution, and the qualities of its external environment,
make up the institution’s ‘integrity system’. The integrity
system is therefore constituted by the combination of
the institution’s coherence-integrity and context-
integrity
• Contingency: external (non-institutional, non-‘business-
as-usual’) events impact on the extent to which the
institution acts in accord with its PIJ
• Relations with larger regime: nested institutions – strict
integration (shared PIJ), associational, antagonistic
• Internal/external scope: The ‘institution’ chosen as an
object of study can be larger or smaller. The conceptual
system remains the same when scaled up or down.
9

10. Figure 1 Working draft conceptual map of institutional integrity
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Values!!
Internal+
organisational+
arrangements!!
Coherence(
Integrity!
External+
relations!
External+
relations+
Context(
integrity!
‘Integrity++System’++
Other+dynamic+
events!!
The+
Institution’s+
Activities!
Consistency
(Integrity!
Full+
integrity+
Contingency+!
C
A
U
S
E
S!
E
F
F
E
C
T
S!
Relations+with+
larger+regime+!
10
PIJ

11. Method
• Engage directly with state and non-state
participants in the climate regime, practitioners,
NGOs, academics, etc.
– determine their views on the values, integrity
mechanisms and governance arrangements
underpinning the climate regime
• Interview subjects were recruited by means of an
Internet search of documentation of Parties and
non-parties active in the Convention, and of
academics active in climate change research
– were initially contacted by email, and could choose a
face-to-face interview, or an online interview using
Skype and/or internet survey (on governance)
11

12. Integrity assessment
• The objective of the analysis was to determine the respondents’
perceptions regarding the integrity of the regime components on which
they commented, using semi-structured interviews
No. Question
1 a) What do you see as the role of your own/the organization?
b) How well do you think it fulfills this role?
c) What values do personnel within your/the organization share that enhance their performance and the performance of the
organization?
2 What does your/the organization need from other organizations in order to be able to fulfill your role?
3 What does your/the organization do for other organizations, which allows them to fulfill their role?
4 Does your/the organization monitor (or otherwise check on) the performance or integrity of other organizations (either in an official or
unofficial manner)?
5 Do any other organizations block your/the organization’s attempts to fulfill your/its role?
6 a) What organizations do you feel you are/the organization is in competition with? Do you think this competition is
b) Healthy and drives better outcomes? Or
c) Do you feel it is unnecessary or wasteful?
7 a) Are there any networks, that you feel:
b) might be open to exploitation by unscrupulous actors? and
c) What could be done avoid this?
8 a) Are there integrity challenges:
b) Your own organization has needed to respond to, or
c) Make changes in order to avoid in future?
12

13. 13
Regime component Public Institutional Justification
Adaptation Response strategy to climate change aimed at adapting to the effects already happening, and preparing for future impacts.
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban
Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)
Subsidiary body established in December 2011. Mandate to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome
with legal force for adoption at COP 21, implemented from 2020.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Mechanism for developing countries to earn certified emission reduction credits (CERs) via emission–reduction projects. Credits
used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Now expired, but
may continue in some form.
CDM Executive Board Supervises the CDM guided by and accountable to the CMP.
Point of contact for CDM Project Participants for the registration of projects and the issuance of CERs.
Climate Change Secretariat – CCS Based in Bonn since 1996, with the assistance of the German government, the UNFCCC Secretariat supports the associated with
the Convention and Protocol guided by Parties.
Conference of the Parties Meeting of the
Parties (CMP)
Supreme decision–making body of the Convention. All States that are Parties to the Convention take decisions regarding
implementation of the Convention, including institutional and administrative arrangements.
Climate Technology Centre and Network
(CTCN)
Facilitates the implementation of the Technology Mechanism with the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), under the COP.
Aims to stimulate technology cooperation, development and transfer and assist developing countries.
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) A fund under the auspices of the World Bank, it assists developing countries in their efforts to reduce emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation and foster conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks through donor funds
Global Environment Facility (GEF) An operational entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention providing financial support to the activities and projects of
developing country Parties
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)
Scientific body that reviews and assesses scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to climate change.
Produces regular reports, and has an advisory role, but is not policy prescriptive.
IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (TFI)
Established by the IPCC to oversee the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC–NGGIP).
Joint Implementation (JI) Countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol transfer and/or acquire emission reduction units (ERUs) to meet emission
reduction target.
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
(LULUCF)
Activities in the LULUCF sectors can mitigate or increase climate change. Mitigation activities under the LULUCF aim to remove
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere or accumulate of carbon stocks.
National delegation Parties to the Convention bring delegations to the climate conferences consisting of government ministry representatives, and
may include other non-state delegates (e.g. business, environmental NGOs), depending on national government preferences.
Reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD+)
Introduced into the COP in 2005. Aims to mitigate contribution of emissions from deforestation in developing countries to global
GHG emissions.
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
Founded in 1966 to help build national resilience, and encourage and maintain growth that improves the quality of life for all.
United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)
UNEP, established in 1972, is identified as ‘voice for the environment’ within the UN system.
United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994 and now has near-universal membership. The aim of the Convention is
‘preventing ‘dangerous’ human interference with the climate system’.
UN-REDD Support mechanism for offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-
carbon paths to sustainable development
Table 3 regime elements discussed by interview subjects

14. Regime Element and/or sub-institution Grouping Category Location
Adaptation Annex I, II Govt. Online
ADP Non-annex I Party COP 20
ADP Annex I, II Observer COP 20
CCS (UNFCCC) UNO UNO SBSTA 40
CDM Non-annex I Party SBSTA 40
CDM Annex I, II Observer COP 20
CDM EB Annex I, I Party COP 20
CMP Annex I, EIT Party SBSTA 40
CTCN** Annex I, II Observer COP 20
CTCN** Annex I, II Party COP 20
GEF Annex I, II Party SBSTA 40
GEF UNO Observer SBSTA 40
IPCC Annex I, II Party Australia
IPCC TFB – NGGI Non-annex I Party Online
JI Annex I, EIT Party SBSTA 40
LULUCF Annex I Observer COP 20
National delegation Annex I EIT Party SBSTA 40
National delegation Annex I, EIT Party SBSTA 40
National delegation Annex I, EIT Party SBSTA 40
National delegation Annex I, II Party SBSTA 40
National delegation Annex I, II Party SBSTA 40
National environment agency Annex I, II Party SBSTA 40
National ministry of foreign affairs Non-annex I Party SBSTA 40
REDD+ Annex I, II Academic Online
REDD+ Non-annex I Party COP 20
REDD+ – FCPF* Annex I, II Observer COP 20
REDD+ – in Mexico Non-annex I Academic Online
REDD+ – in Mexico Non-annex I Observer COP 20
REDD+ – UN-REDD* Annex I, II Observer COP 20
UNDP – disaster prevention in São Paulo State Non-annex I Academic Online
UNEP Annex I, II Academic Online
UNEP Non-annex I Academic Online
UNEP/UNDP in the Mekong Basin Non-annex I Academic Online
UNFCCC Annex I, II Observer COP 20
UNFCCC Annex I, II Observer COP 20
UNFCCC Annex I, II Observer COP 20

15. Table 3. Integrity interviews – results
Key: 0 = integrity 1 = integrity challenge
Red: Cause for concern Blue: Not a cause for concern 15
Question Q1 a) b) c) Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 a) b) c) Q7 a) b) Q8 a) b) c)
Score
15
Regime element
Adaptation 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 7
ADP 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 9
ADP 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 9
CDM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7
CDM 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 9
CDM EB 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
CMP 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 9
CTCN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
CTCN 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8
GEF 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
GEF 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
IPCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
IPCC TFB – NGGI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4
JI 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6
LULUCF 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 11
National delegation 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10
National delegation 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
National delegation 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
National delegation 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 9
National delegation 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 7
National environment agency 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10
National ministry of foreign affairs 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
REDD+ 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 9
REDD+ 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 9
REDD+ – FCPF 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
REDD+ – in Mexico 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
REDD+ – in Mexico 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
REDD+ – UN-REDD 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 8
UNDP – disaster prevention in São Paulo State 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
UNEP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
UNEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
UNEP/UNDP in the Mekong Basin 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 10
UNFCCC 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 7
UNFCCC 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 10
UNFCCC 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11
UNFCCC 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
UNFCCC Secretariat 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 9
Total number of integrity challenges per question
(out of 37 elements)
2 22 12 15 6 13 34 29 16 25 28 33 27 25 22
Total number of integrity challenges for all elements
(out of 555) 309

16. Summary of results
• No regime components achieved ‘full integrity’
• PIJ, it is good to see that the vast majority understood
what they created to achieve, but the uncertainty in the
Secretariat reflects the shifting nature of the climate
negotiations
• A majority also had a keen understanding of the values
that underpinned them and had some form of monitoring
(either formal or informal)
• Only half, or so, thought they fulfilled their role well
• Wide range of blockers identified, from sceptics, to
business – and NGOs
• Low integrity levels regarding ‘blockers’ in the system, the
presence of unscrupulous actor networks, and the
existence of integrity challenges overall, indicate that
more work is required in these areas
16

17. Concluding comments on integrity
research
• How might the climate regime might respond to
these findings?
– Integrity
• Roles
– Regime elements understand their PIJ, values and responsibilities
– But patchy in terms of role fulfilment – can this be improved?
• Existence of MRV systems across the regime
– But greater effort required in ensuring compliance and
enforcement in the light of non-compliance
• Blockers, unscrupulous actor networks
– Pervasive problem in negotiations – can it be changed?
• Role of non-state actors is increasing but there remains a
tension re role cf. Parties
– How to empower non-state actors while maintaining sovereignty of
the nation-state?
17

18. Conceptualising governance
18

19. Figure 2: Model of Governance Quality (Cadman 2011)
Structure
Participatory
Institutional context
Governance system
Interaction
(Collaborative)
Process
Deliberative
Outcomes
(Substantive and Behavioural; i.e. policies and/or
programmes which solve problems and change behaviour)
Legitimacy
Inputs
Evaluation of
governance
quality
Outputs
19

20. How to evaluate the ‘thickness’ of governance?
Principle Criterion Indicator
“Meaningful
participation”
Interest representation
Inclusiveness
Equality
Resources
Organisational
responsibility
Accountability
Transparency
“Productive deliberation”
Decision making
Democracy
Agreement
Dispute settlement
Implementation
Behaviour change
Problem solving
Durability
Cadman (2011) and Lammerts van Bueren and Blom (1997) 20
Table 2: Normative hierarchical framework of principles, criteria and indicators of governance quality

21. Research: Governance survey
• The intent was to determine the stakeholder perceptions of
governance quality of the regime (recognising there are
individual components)
• Internet-based search of regime participants’ emails (approx.
600) March-January 2014 (to capture old and new regime
participants before, during after SBSTA and COP)
– Response rate to date of 78: more than 1 in 10 (relatively high for
internet survey)
– Some respondents agreed to undertake integrity interview as well
• Respondents identified by
– Sector (environmental, social, economic, governmental, secretariat
or other institutional component)
– Geopolitical locality (global North, global South)
• Application quality of governance assessment framework,
using 11 indicators of ‘good’ governance
– Rated indicators using a Likert scale from ‘very high’ (5) to ‘very low’
(0)
– Opportunities for substantive comments as well 21

22. Governance survey – non-validated results
Elements selected by
respondents:
IPCC: 11
UNFCCC: 12
REDD+: 13
UNEP: 11
GEF: 6
CDM: 3
UNDP: 2
Other: 20
(Wide variety,
inc. JI,
Adaptation,
MPTF, NAP,
etc.)
22
Indicator
Rating (out of 5)
GOVT.
(18)
ENVT.
(23)
ACAD.
(22)
North
(31)
South
(38)
Inclusiveness 3.94 4.13 3.86 3.94 4.05
Equality 3.39 3.83 3.64 3.45 3.61
Resources 3.06 2.57 2.42 2.38 2.79
Accountability 3.83 3.74 3.61 3.66 3.66
Transparency 3.67 3.61 3.45 3.48 3.76
Democracy 3.56 3.61 3.68 3.66 3.63
Agreement 3.28 3.57 3.29 3.31 3.47
Dispute settlement 3.22 3.17 3.18 3.10 3.29
Behavioural change 3.39 3.52 3.27 3.61 3.47
Problem solving 3.33 3.57 3.14 3.35 3.45
Durability 3.67 3.48 3.68 3.61 3.63
Total (out of 55) 38.34 38.8 37.32 37.55 38.81

23. Governance survey – validated results
23
Indicator
Rating (out of 5)
UNFCCC
(103)
North
(46)
South
(57)
CDM
(90)
North
(38)
South
(52)
REDD+
(90)
North
(41)
South
(49)
Inclusiveness 3.9 3.7 4.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.4 3.7 3.1
Equality 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.1
Resources 2.5 2.0 2.9 2.0 1.6 2.4 2.2 1.6 2.8
Accountability 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.4
Transparency 3.1 2.8 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.2
Democracy 3.0 2.6 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 3.1
Agreement 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.2
Dispute settlement 2.8 2.5 3.1 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.0
Behavioural change 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1
Problem solving 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.2
Durability 3.4 3.3 3.5 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.2
Total (out of 55) 33.9 31.2 36.1 30 27.9 31.6 32.8 30.6 34.4

24. Results: Selected highlights
• “The UNFCCC works on a consensus basis, so while it is very inclusive of all
Party views, it is very slow to respond to the challenges it must address”
[Inclusiveness]
• “It is only developing country participants that receive financial support to
participate in the UNFCCC meetings/negotiations. I am not from a
developing country” [Resources]
• “There are almost no effective dispute settlement mechanisms in
multilateral environmental agreements, and those are only voluntary and
between governments. The private sector and civil society have no
responsibility or recourse” [dispute settlement]
• “For some specific occasions and circumstances (e.g. in countries with
effective governance): yes. On a large scale: no. There needs to be a
stronger link to local priorities: locally relevant ecosystem services and
cultural and intrinsic motivations. Paying for carbon (economic incentives)
alone are not enough, as opportunity costs are high” [Problem-solving]
24

25. Summary of results
• Striking similarity of perceptions of governance quality across
sectors:
– High perception of governance quality of the regime elements
surveyed
• Reflects well on the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of participants (State
and Non-state)
• Very little divergence between sectors
– Global South consistently rated regime elements higher than the
North
– Inclusiveness (almost) universally rated the highest governance
indicator
– Resources universally rated the lowest governance indicator
– Dispute settlement rated the second lowest indicator by all (with the
exception of academics, who identified problem solving as the second
lowest indicator)
• The indicator results are mostly consistent with previous peer-
reviewed studies
– REDD+ (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) and
– CDM (2014, 2015) 25

26. Concluding comments on governance
research
• How might the climate regime might respond to
these findings?
– Governance
• Resources
– Another pervasive problem across the UN system, never enough
money, and capacity (technical, infrastructural, institutional, etc.):
needs to be addressed re climate finance, stakeholder participation,
and implementation activities
• Dispute Settlement
– Also pervasive across the UN system, but in terms of MRV of the
climate regime it is important that action is taken to develop clear
dispute settlement mechanisms
• Is it time to think about governance standards for the
mechanisms/programmes/sub-institutions in the system?
– Are ‘safeguards’ and other ad-hoc arrangements enough, when dealing
with mega-funds and multi-stakeholders?
26

27. Relationship between governance
and integrity

28. • Governance as a value-neutral term
– structures and processes used to steer and coordinate
interactions within an institution or institutional complex
– unlike ‘justice’ or ‘integrity’, which are intrinsically
normative terms
• Normative aspects of governance, are captured by
terms like ‘good governance’, ‘governance values’,
‘governance failures’ and ‘governance principles’
• No single definition of ‘good governance’
– Provide a conceptual schema
• based on the dimension of value- ‘thickness’
• describing the range of typical notions of governance
values
Working conceptual framework1
Based on the work of Hugh Breakey, with input from Tim Cadman, Charles Sampford, Vesselin Popovski
and Rowena Maguire

29. • ‘Thickness’ of governance values
– ‘thickness’ tracks how substantial, wide-ranging
and demanding a given set of governance values
are
– ‘Thin’ concepts will have fewer values, more
based around procedural mechanisms and some
‘good’ governance qualities (such as transparency
and accountability)
– ‘Thicker’ concepts of governance values will
incorporate a richer portfolio of values and
qualities, including substantive ethical goals

30. A. Thin: Specific procedural qualities
– specific aspects of the processes for how things are
done: In particular, they refer to various qualities that
ensure social reliability and responsibility, such as
transparency, accountability and the rule of law
– Mechanisms concern accountability measures,
reporting and especially regulatory bodies and
legislation.
– What people have in mind when they say that we
need ‘better governance’ or that there have been
‘governance failures’.They usually refer in this context
to improved regulation and accountability, and
perhaps compliance with codes of conduct.

31. B. Thin-ish: Governance as a function of
institutional integrity
– Values framed in terms of institutional integrity as the
internal organizational arrangements that empower
an institution to realize its ‘Public Institutional
Justification’
– Qualities of the internal organizational arrangements
that help the institution live up to its PIJ (achieve its
institutional goals and operate according to its
professed norms)
– Expect values to be present (such as accountability
etc.), as these constitute generically useful means of
ensuring sustainable institutional efficacy

32. C. Thick-ish: ‘Objective lists’
– Values focus on a standard set (an objective list) of
expected structural and process values regarding
who participates in the governance systems and
how decisions are made and implemented
– Thicker than B because they extend beyond those
necessary to help the institution achieve its PIJ
– Gives rise to governance principles, such as
Cadman, UNDP Principles, etc. extended beyond
rule of law accountability and transparency to
include participation, deliberation, etc.

33. D. Thick: Good governance as morality and justice
– Values on the demands of morality, justice and legitimacy
(cf. Sampford - rule of law, liberty, equality, fraternity
[citizenship in sovereign states], human rights, democracy,
and environment)
– Unlike C there is nothing necessary about this number and
those values can be cut up and aggregated in different
ways
– These distinctions and classifications are not so much right
or wrong but more or less useful. While governance values
are distinct, they are generally mutually supportive
– values may not be identical to western values but will be
nuanced and influenced by the context in which they arose

34. Relationship between good governance and
integrity
– The first two ‘thin’ approaches would make
governance values one part of institutional
integrity (specifically, parts of the institution’s
coherence-integrity)
– On the latter two approaches (C and D),
governance values form a separate, cross-cutting
concept to integrity, connected to higher levels of
integrity (morality, justice, etc.), but
• Dependent upon the extent to normative concerns, are
either present/absent in the institution, or are/are not
a desired feature
– To be continued…

35. Mapping the climate change
regime

36. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Conference/Meeting of Parties
Kyoto Protocol / New arrangement
Permanent Subsidiary bodies (SBSTA, SBI)
Subsidiary bodies (Finance, etc.)
AdaptationMitigation
Market
mechanisms
(CDM, REDD+, etc.)
Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions
(NAMAs)
National Adaptation
Programmes of Action
(NAPAs)
Loss & Damage
Mechanism
National activities & Reporting
Climate Change Secretariat
Figure 1: Schematic outline of the climate regime
Mapping the climate change regime
36

37. Ω
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Conference of Parties (COP) – Annex I, Non-Annex I, Observers (IGOs,
NGOs) Groupings: G77, AOSIS, LDCs, EU, UG, EIG, etc.
International
Emissions Trading
(IET)
‘Assigned Amount
Units’
(AAU)
AdaptationMitigation
Land Use, Land
Use Change and
Forestry
(LULUCF)
‘Removal Unit’
(RMU)
National
Adaptation
Programmes
of Action
(NAPAs)
[LDCs]
Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM)
‘Certified Emission Reduction’
(CER)
Joint Implementation
(JI)
‘Emission Reduction Unit’
(ERU)
Reducing
emissions from
deforestation and
forest degradation
and the role of
conservation,
sustainable
management of
forests and
enhancement of
forest carbon
stocks in
developing
countries (REDD)
Nationally
Appropriate
Mitigation
Actions
(NAMAs)
Warsaw
International
Mechanism for
Loss and
Damage
(‘loss and
damage
mechanism’
LDM)
Bureau 11 Members (President, 7 Vice-presidents, Chairs of SBSTA, SBI, Rapporteur) –
representing 5 regions: African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Latin
American and the Caribbean States, and the Western European and Other States
Climate Change
Secretariat (CCS)
Support for
constituted bodies,
technical expertise,
analysis & review
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention (AWG-LCA)
Subsidiary*
bodies*
Executive Board of the Clean
Development Mechanism
(CDM EB)
Joint
Implementation
Supervisory
Committee (JISC)
Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) [Cop
16]
CDM Registry
Registry
Registry
National projects
Adaptation Fund (AF)
[Article 11 KP]
Adaptation
Fund Board
(AFB)
Financial Mechanisms
[Article 11 FCCC]
National
activities
Green Climate Fund (GCF) [COP 16]
Food & Agriculture
Organisation
(FAO)
Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (FCPF)
Private
Donors
Work stream 1: the
2015 agreement
Work stream 2: pre-
2020 ambition
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for
Enhanced Action (ADP)
[Replaced AWG-Kyoto Protocol at COP 18 – Doha]:
Mandate to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or
an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention
no later than 2015, for implementation by 2020
Executive
Direction &
management
- Implementation
Strategy Unit
- COP/CMP
Secretariat
COP/CMP Secretariat
Comprised of CCS staff
Deputy
Executive
Secretary
Administrative
Services
Conference
Affairs
Services
Communication
& Outreach
IT Services
Legal Affairs
Mitigation,
Data &
Analysis
Finance,
Technology &
Capacity
Building
- SBI & SBSTA
support
Sustainable
Development
Mechanisms
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Est. World Meteorological organisation (WMO) & UN Environment Programme (UNEP) 1988
UN Development
Programme
(UNDP)
UN Environment
Programme (UNEP)
National actions National
programmes
National
projects
Facilitation
Branch
Enforcement
Branch
LDC Expert Group (LEG)
Consultative Group of Experts on National
Communications from Parties not included in
Annex I to the Convention (CGE)
Technology
Mechanism
[COP 16] Adaptation Committee (AC)
KEY
· DRC*Fonds*National*
REDD+*
· Ethiopia*CRGE*Facility*
· Ecuador*Yasuni*Capital*
Window*
· Ecuador*Yasuni*Revenue*
Window*
· Mali*Climate*Fund*
· Sustainable*Energy*for*All*
GEF Administered
Trust Funds
[Operational
responsibility]
Cancun Adaptation
Framework
Long Term Finance
(LTF) [End: COP 19]
Contributor
Parties
Bilateral
institutions
Multilateral
institutions
UNFCCC Financial Mechanisms
UN-REDD [Denmark, EU, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway & Spain]
Flexible Mechanisms
Asia Pacific Carbon Fund (APCF) [ADB]
Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) [Multi
donors]
Global Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy Fund (GEEREF) [EIB]
Climate Investment Funds
· Clean Technology Fund (CTF)
· Strategic Climate Fund (SCF)
· Forest Investment Program (FIP)
· Pilot Program on Climate Resilience
(PPCR)
· Scaling-Up Renewable Energy
Program (SREP) International
Forest
Carbon
Initiative
(IFCI)
[Australia]
International
Climate
Initiative (ICI)
[Germany]
International
Climate Fund
(ICF) [UK]
Global
Climate
Change
Alliance
(GCCA) [EU]
Global
Climate
Change
Initiative
(GCCI) [US]
Non-UNFCCC Financial Mechanisms
Bilateral Institutions
· DFAT (Australia)
[prev. AusAID]
· DFATD (Canada)
[prev. CIDA]
· FFEM (France)
· MIES (France)
[Defunct]
· AFD (France)
· BMZ (Germany)
· GIZ (Germany)
· KfW (Germany)
[development
bank]
· MOFA (Japan)
Market mechanisms
· JICA (Japan)
· JBIC (Japan)
[development
bank]
· NORAD (Norway)
· ODIN (Norway)
· DEFRA (UK)
· DECC (UK)
· DFID (UK)
· Ex-Im (US)
· OPIC (US)
[private
investment]
· USAID (US)
Multilateral Development Banks
(MDBs)
· World Bank (WB)
· Asian Development Bank
(ADB)
· African Development Bank
(AfDB)
· European Bank for
Reconstruction &
Development (EBRD)
· European Investment Bank
(EIB)
· Inter-American
Development Bank (IADB)
United Nations
Recipient Parties
Multilateral Institutions
Private
Donors
National Climate
Funds
Pre-convention
National Implementing
agencies
Climate
Technology Centre
& Network (CTCN)
Technology Executive Committee (TEC)
Advisory
Board
National Designated Entities
(DNE)
National
projects
Compliance Committee
Track 2: (Internationally
determined activities)
Track 1: (Nationally
determined activities)
National
projects
National
projects
National
registries
Permanent*
Subsidiary*
bodies*
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
Nairobi Work Plan, REDD, Technology Mechanism, GGIs, RSO
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI):
Bail Road Map & MRV, IAR, ICA, NAMA, LDM,
Adaptation, REDD
Kyoto Protocol Conference of the Parties meeting as
Members of the Parties (CMP)
37 industrialized countries and the European Community
committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five %
against 1990 levels. First commitment period ended 2012
Non-governmental Organisations
National
mechanisms
Interactive
relationship
Consequential
relationship
Regime
component
Unilateral
Contributor
Parties
Designated National
Authority (DNA)
Accredited Independent Entity
(AIE)
Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I
Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) [concluded COP 18]
Under
development
Doha Amendment 2012
Second*Commitment*Period:*Parties*
committed*to*reduce*GHG*emissions*
by*at*least*18*%*below*1990*levels*
from*2013*to*2020.*Composition*of*
parties*differs*from*the*first*period.*
2% profits to
Adaptation Fund
Fast-start
Finance
(COP 15)
· REDD+*JP*Partnership*
Support*
· Climate*Vulnerable*
Forum*Fund*
· JP*Towards*Rio*+20*and*
Beyond*
· UN*REDD*Viet*Nam*Phase*
II*MPTF*
UN Multi Partner Trust Fund [trustee/funds administration
GEF Trust Funds
· National
Communications
· Multi-Focal Area
Projects with Climate
Change Component
Mitigation
Adaptation
Climate change
Mitigation
Strategic Priority
on Adaptation
Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)
Special Climate
Change Fund (SCCF)
Adaptation
Mitigation
Technology transfer
Economic diversification
(fossil fuel countries)
Adaptation Trust Fund (ATF) - interim secretariat only
NAPA project
database
NAMA
Registry
Adaptation
Designated Operational
Entity (DOE) [auditor]
GEF Council [governing
board of directors]
World Bank [trustee/funds administration]
GEF Assembly
World Bank [trustee/funds
administration]
National
Adaptation
Plans
(NAPs)
[LDCs & non-
LDCs]
Plan
formulation
National
plans
Implementing Agencies
The Climate
Change Regime
as of June 3 2014
Figure 2: Comprehensive map of the climate regime (early draft) 37

38. Mapping the climate change regime: cont.
Figure 3: Comprehensive map of the climate regime – thematic areas highlighted (late draft) 38

39. 39
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (1994)
Conference of Parties (COP), COP serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) – Annex I, Annex II,
Non-Annex I, Observers ( IGOs, NGOs) Groupings: G77, AOSIS, LDCs, EU, UG, EIG, Other groups.
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Est. World Meteorological organisation (WMO) & UN Environment Programme (UNEP) 1988
Bureau 11 Members (President, 7 Vice-presidents, Chairs of SBSTA, SBI,
Rapporteur) – representing 5 regions : African States, Asian States,
Eastern European States, Latin American and the Caribbean States, and
the Western European and Other States
COP/CMP Secretariat
Comprised of CCS staff
Doha Amendment 2012 Second
Commitment Period: Annex I KP Parties
committed to reduce GHG emissions by
at least 18 % below 1990 levels from
2013 to 2020 (Quantified Emissions
Reduction or Limitation Commitment).
Composition of Parties differs from the
first period [NB: Not yet in force].
Copenhagen Accord (2009) information
provided by Annex I Parties on
quantified economy-wide emissions
targets for 2020 and on nationally
appropriate mitigation actions of
developing country Parties (Non-annex
I)
Kyoto Protocol Conference of the Parties
37 industrialised countries and the European Community
committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five %
against 1990 (1997). First commitment period ended 2012. The
objective of reducing global temperature by 1.5 degrees celsius is
subject to a periodic long-term review (2013-2015) agreed to at
COP16 (2010)
Permanent Subsidiary bodies
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA): Nairobi
Work Plan (inc. economic diversification ), REDD, Technology Mechanism,
GGIs, RSO, FVA, NMA, NMM
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI): Bail Road Map, MRV: IAR, ICA,
NAMA, LDC WP, LDM, Adaptation, REDD, PSP, Capacity Building
Frameworks (inc. Durban forum )
Private
Donors
Multilateral
institutions
Contributing
Parties
Bilateral
institutions
Private
Donors
Unilateral
Contributor Parties
Convention bodies
Protocol bodies
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)
[Replaced AWG-Kyoto Protocol at COP 18 Doha, and Ad Hoc W orking Group on
Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) - outcome
completed at COP 18 – Doha - inc. Doha Work Programme]: Mandate to develop
a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under
the Convention no later than 2015, for implementation by 2020
Financial Mechanism [Article 11 UNFCCC]
Other financial mechanisms
Adaptation Fund Board (AFB)
Compliance Committee
Facilitative BranchEnforcement Branch
Executive Board of the Clean
Development Mechanism
(CDM EB)
Joint Implementation Supervisory
Committee (JISC)
Work stream 1: the
2015 agreement
Work stream 2:
pre-2020 ambition
Adaptation Committee (AC)
Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) [Cop 16]
Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate
Finance Flows (BA) and beyond BA
Executive Committee of the Warsaw International
Mechanism for Loss and Damage
Technology
Executive
Committee (TEC)
Technology
Mechanism [COP
16]
National Designated
Entities (DNE)
Climate Technology
Centre & Network
(CTCN)
Advisory
Board
Consultative Group of Experts on National
Communications from Parties not included in Annex
I to the Convention (CGE)
Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG)
Climate Change Secretariat (CCS) Support for constituted
bodies, technical expertise, analysis & review
Deputy Executive Secretary
Executive Direction & management
- Implementation Strategy Unit
- COP/CMP Secretariat
Administrative
Services
Conference Affairs
Services
Communication &
Outreach
IT Services
Legal Affairs Adaptation Mitigatio
n, Data
&
Analysis
Finance,
Technology
& Capacity
Building
- SBI &
SBSTA
support
Sustainab
le
Developm
ent
Mechanis
ms
Mitigation
Nationally
Appropriate
Mitigation Actions
(NAMAs)
Reducing
emissions
from
deforestation
and forest
degradation
and the role of
conservation,
sustainable
management
of forests and
enhancement
of forest
carbon stocks
in developing
countries
(REDD)
Land Use,
Land Use
Change and
Forestry
(LULUCF)
‘Removal Unit ’
(RMU)
Joint
Implementatio
n
(JI)
‘Emission
Reduction
Unit’
(ERU)
International
Emissions
Trading (IET)
‘Assigned
Amount Units’
(AAU)
Clean Development
Mechanism
(CDM)
‘Certified Emission
Reduction’ (CER)
NAMA Registry
Registry National registries
National actions National activities National projects National projects
Track 1: (Nationally
determined activities)
Track 2: (Internationally
determined activities)
Accredited Independent
Entity (AIE)
National projects National projects
CDM Registry
Designated Operational Entity (DOE)
[auditor]
Designated National Authority (DNA)
2% profits to Adaptation Fund
Adaptation
Cancun Adaptation Framework
National
Adaptation
Plans
(NAPs)
[LDCs &
non-LDCs]
National
Adaptation
Programmes
of Action
(NAPAs)
[LDCs]
Warsaw
International
Mechanism for
Loss and Damage
(‘loss and
damage
mechanism’ LDM)
Plan formulation NAPA project database
National plans National programmes National mechanisms
National Implementing agencies National Climate Funds
Recipient Parties
Non-governmental Organisations
UN Development
Programme
(UNDP)
Food &
Agriculture
Organization
(FAO)
UN
Environment
Programme
(UNEP)
United Nations
Multilateral Institutions Bilateral Institutions
Implementing Agencies
UNFCCC Financial Mechanisms
World Bank [ trustee/funds administration ]
Long Term Finance (LTF) [ END; COP 19 ]
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
GEF Council
[governing board of
directors]
GEF Assembly
GEF Administered
Trust Funds
[Operational
responsibility]
National Communications
Multi-Focal Area Projects with Climate
Change Component
GEF Trust Funds
Poznań Strategic
Programme on
Technology Transfer
(PSP) (COP 14)
Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)
Adaptation
Mitigation Technology transfer
Economic diversification (fossil fuel countries)
Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)
Adaptation Trust Fund (ATF) - interim secretariat only
Adaptation Fund (AF) [Article 11 KP]
Green Climate Fund (GCF) [COP 16]
GCF Secretariat GCF Board
Non-UNFCCC Financial Mechanisms
World Bank [trustee/funds
administration]
Climate Investment Funds
Fast-start Finance
(COP 15)
Global Climate Change
Alliance (GCCA) [EU]
International Forest
Carbon Initiative (IFCI)
[ Australia ]
Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility ( FCPF )
Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF)
[ multi donors ]
Asia Pacific Carbon Fund (APCF)
[ADB]
Global Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy Fund
( GEEREF ) [EIB]
UN Multi Partner Trust Fund [trustee/funds administration]
International Climate
Initiative (ICI)
[ Germany ]
International Climate
Fund (ICF) [UK]
Global Climate Change
Initiative (GCCI) [US]
UN-REDD [ Denmark, EU, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway
& Spain
LIST
LIST
LIST
National Reports: Reporting and review for Annex I Parties; National Communications (Annex I); Biennial Reports and IAR; National Communications (Non-Annex I); GHG Inventories (Annex I) (GGIs); NAMA MRV; NAPA; Accounting, Reporting & Review under the KP; Initial Reports under the KP
Mitigation
Climate change Mitigation
Adaptation
Strategic Priority on
Adaptation
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figures 4 & 5: mapped associations of data
Figure 6: Interactive map & related database
(early concept design draft)

40. Figures 7-9 Technical
interactive map versions
(pre-design phase)

41. Thank you
t.cadman@griffith.edu.au