Documents Hermwille, Lukas 4 results

"This concluding article derives six major findings from the contributions to this special issue. First, the barriers and challenges to decarbonisation vary significantly across sectoral systems. Second, and similarly, the need and potential for the five functions of international governance institutions to contribute to effective climate protection also vary widely. Third, while the pattern is uneven, there is a general undersupply of international climate governance. Fourth, the sectoral analyses confirm that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement play an important overarching role but remain limited in advancing effective sectoral governance. Fifth, while non-environmental institutions may present important barriers to decarbonisation, more synergistic effects are possible. Sixth, our sectoral approach provides a sound basis on which to identify sector-specific policy options. The paper then offers reflections on the merits and limitations of the sectoral approach, before identifying avenues for future research to further advance the agenda."

"The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis and the global response to it will co-determine the future of climate policy. The recovery packages responding to the impacts of the pandemic may either help to chart a new sustainable course, or they will further cement existing high-emission pathways and thwart the achievement of the Paris Agreement objectives. This article discusses how international climate governance may help align the recovery packages with the climate agenda. For this purpose, the article investigates five key governance functions through which international institutions may contribute: send guidance and signals, establish rules and standards, provide transparency and accountability, organize the provision of means of implementation, and promote collective learning. Reflecting on these functions, the article finds that the process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), together with other international institutions, could promote sustainable recovery in several ways."

"In recent years, the public discourse on the phase-out of carbon-intensive technologies and practices has come to a near consensus that a “just transition” is required. Yet, this term seems to have as many meanings as there are stakeholders using it. The purpose of this paper is to unpack the different meanings that regional stakeholders assign to it and the underlying dimensions of in(justice) that they invoke in their political communication.

To this end, we employ a policy narrative analysis to study and compare the political discourse in four European coal and carbon-intensive mining regions: Ida-Virumaa (Estonia, oil shale), the Rhenish mining region (Germany, lignite), Upper Silesia (Poland, hard coal) and Western Macedonia (Greece, lignite). Specifically, we address the following research questions: Which narratives are characterising the political discourse around just transition? Which (in)justices are being invoked? Which patterns, similarities or differences are recognizable between regions?

We found that hopeful narratives describing structural change as an opportunity to reinvent the region are prevalent in all regions. Strong narratives of resistance only prevail in Upper Silesia and Ida-Virumaa where a phase-out decision has not yet been adopted. In terms of injustices, we find surprisingly little evidence that injustices related to the immediate effects of the transformation (e.g. lay-offs and compensation for workers and companies) play an important role. Instead, the aspects related to the historical injustices produced by the legacy industrial system prevail. And perhaps most importantly, questions about access and allocation of the opportunities of the imminent transition are key and should be addressed more explicitly."