IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v19y2019i6d10.1007_s10784-019-09455-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governing complexity: How can the interplay of multilateral environmental agreements be harnessed for effective international market-based climate policy instruments?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Hoch

    (Perspectives Climate Research)

  • Axel Michaelowa

    (Perspectives Climate Research
    University of Zurich)

  • Aglaja Espelage

    (Perspectives Climate Research)

  • Anne-Kathrin Weber

    (Perspectives Climate Research
    University of Freiburg)

Abstract

Major new multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have entered into force in 2016, including the Paris Agreement (PA) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, the Kigali Amendment (KA) to the Montreal Protocol with a phase-down schedule for HFC production and use in all countries as well as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) under the International Civil Aviation Organization, an offset mechanism for GHG emissions. Regarding climate change mitigation, these MEAs are implicitly and explicitly linked to each other. However, the interaction effects between them have not yet been studied. We apply document analysis to assess the following question: how does the MEA interplay impact the scope and effectiveness of international market-based climate policy instruments defined in Article 6 of the PA (Paris Mechanisms) regarding NDC achievement? The Paris Mechanisms can generate early reductions in HFCs that lower the KA baseline and thus the entire phase-down schedule, thereby generating long-term GHG mitigation. Reduction in HFC-23—a large, controversial source of carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)—is now mandated through the KA and thus no longer available for international market mechanisms. If it accepts CDM credits predating 2020, CORSIA will not generate demand for emission units generated by the Article 6 mechanisms and thus not impact their effectiveness. Otherwise, CORSIA demand for Article 6 credits enhances effectiveness, provided that ‘double counting’ of credits is prevented through corresponding adjustments.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Hoch & Axel Michaelowa & Aglaja Espelage & Anne-Kathrin Weber, 2019. "Governing complexity: How can the interplay of multilateral environmental agreements be harnessed for effective international market-based climate policy instruments?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 595-613, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:19:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-019-09455-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-019-09455-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-019-09455-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-019-09455-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Igor Shishlov & Valentin Bellassen, 2014. "Moving from the CDM to "various approaches"," Working Papers hal-01151911, HAL.
    2. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    3. Sebastian Oberthür & Thomas Gehring, 2006. "Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(2), pages 1-31, May.
    4. Arpad Cseh, 2019. "Aligning climate action with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 139-146, February.
    5. Raustiala, Kal & Victor, David G., 2004. "The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-309, April.
    6. Daisuke Hayashi & Axel Michaelowa, 2013. "Standardization of baseline and additionality determination under the CDM," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 191-209, March.
    7. Michael Zürn & Benjamin Faude, 2013. "Commentary: On Fragmentation, Differentiation, and Coordination," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 119-130, August.
    8. Michael Wara, 2007. "Is the global carbon market working?," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7128), pages 595-596, February.
    9. Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg & Harro van Asselt & Fariborz Zelli, 2009. "The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 14-40, November.
    10. Munnings, Clayton & Leard, Benjamin & Bento, Antonio, 2016. "The Net Emissions Impact of HFC-23 Offset Projects from the Clean Development Mechanism," RFF Working Paper Series dp-16-01, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalia Escobar-Pemberthy & Maria Ivanova, 2020. "Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Rationale and Design of the Environmental Conventions Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    3. Peter H. Sand & Jeffrey McGee, 2022. "Lessons learnt from two decades of international environmental agreements: law," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 263-278, June.
    4. Joseph Earsom, 2023. "It’s not as simple as copy/paste: the EU’s remobilisation of the High Ambition Coalition in international climate governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 27-42, March.
    5. Joshua Philipp Elsässer & Thomas Hickmann & Sikina Jinnah & Sebastian Oberthür & Thijs Graaf, 2022. "Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 373-391, June.
    6. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Griffiths, Steve & Kim, Jinsoo & Bazilian, Morgan, 2021. "Climate change and industrial F-gases: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melanie van Driel & Frank Biermann & Rakhyun E. Kim & Marjanneke J. Vijge, 2022. "International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 669-682, November.
    2. Jonathan Pickering & Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, 2017. "Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Thomas Gehring & Benjamin Faude, 2014. "A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 471-498, December.
    4. Chaewoon Oh, 2020. "Contestations over the financial linkages between the UNFCCC’s Technology and Financial Mechanism: using the lens of institutional interaction," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 559-575, September.
    5. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    6. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Oliver Westerwinter, 2022. "The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 233-262, April.
    7. Astrid Carrapatoso & Angela Geck, 2018. "Multiple Wins, Multiple Organizations—How to Manage Institutional Interaction in Financing Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Reinsberg,Bernhard Wilfried & Michaelowa,Katharina & Knack,Stephen, 2015. "Which donors, which funds ? the choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7441, The World Bank.
    9. C. Randall Henning, 2019. "Regime Complexity and the Institutions of Crisis and Development Finance," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(1), pages 24-45, January.
    10. Fuß, Julia & Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Saravia, Andrés & Zürn, Michael, 2021. "Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2021-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Simon Hartmann & Thomas Lindner & Jakob Müllner & Jonas Puck, 2022. "Beyond the nation-state: Anchoring supranational institutions in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 1282-1306, August.
    12. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    13. Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1341-1354, December.
    14. Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Zangl, Bernhard, 2015. "Which post-Westphalia? International organizations between constitutionalism and authoritarianism," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(3), pages 568-594.
    15. Jeff Colgan & Robert Keohane & Thijs Van de Graaf, 2012. "Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 117-143, June.
    16. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    17. Benjamin Cashore & Michael W. Stone, 2014. "Does California need Delaware? Explaining Indonesian, Chinese, and United States support for legality compliance of internationally traded products," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 49-73, March.
    18. Rakhyun Kim & Brendan Mackey, 2014. "International environmental law as a complex adaptive system," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 5-24, March.
    19. Michelle Betsill & Navroz K. Dubash & Matthew Paterson & Harro van Asselt & Antto Vihma & Harald Winkler, 2015. "Building Productive Links between the UNFCCC and the Broader Global Climate Governance Landscape," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, May.
    20. Jonas Meckling, 2019. "Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 317-338, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:19:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-019-09455-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.