Yet despite scientific consensus on its main cause — us — politicians and governments still lack the will and ambition to tackle the crisis effectively. Instead we see cities, companies and NGOs responding. They have become the driving forces behind innovative tools for behavioural change, creating a complex alternative web of institutions, instruments and actors seeking to govern climate change at the global level.
Governing Climate Change (Global Institutions) (ebook)
How to apply. Who should join? Course content. On this course you examine different approaches to coping with climate change, from international agreements to market-based solutions and private activities.
Services on Demand
Theory is mixed with practice through lectures, discussions, games and excursions to provide concrete examples of how the issue is being addressed at various levels and by various actors. Along the way we invite you to question scientists, policymakers and lobbyists. In EPA was rated the best Dutch research group in environmental economics, sociology and policy.
Learning objectives. At the end of this course, you will: Understand how global climate governance has changed over the past 40 years and where it might take us in the future. Be able to critically examine and assess current climate governance in terms of its emergence, effectiveness and efficiency, and be able to formulate reasoned opinions about contested concepts like fairness, legitimacy, equity and justice.
Governing Climate Change Adaptation in Ganges Basin : Assessing Needs and Capacities
Improve your communication and debating skills on climate change. Experience practical local and global solutions to climate-change issues in the Netherlands.
- 6 key books for understanding the politics of global climate change | Global Policy Journal.
- Boundary retracement : processes and procedures.
- Governing Climate Change : Harriet A. Bulkeley : !
- Sharps Rifles and Spanish Mules: The San Antonio-El Paso Mail, 1851-1881?
- A Monk in the World: Cultivating a Spiritual Life.
- Thematic Focus and Projects!
About the Professor. Course reading. Increasing evidence argues that when they have access to information and opportunities to participate civil society organizations can contribute to sound decisions about public spending and efforts to hold governments to account for the use public money, ultimately improving outcomes. For example, in Fundar, a civil society group in Mexico, used access to information to set up a database to monitor how funds were being distributed through a farm subsidy program designed to offset the negative impact of free trade agreements on poor farmers.
Fundar was able to use the data it collected to document that a disproportionate share of subsidy funds was going to a small number of wealthy landowners. The resulting public outcry led to more subsidies going to the vulnerable farmers the program was intended to serve and changes to the program regulations to ensure that funds would reach targeted beneficiaries. It can also open the doors to corrupt, wasteful, or inappropriate spending, which can reduce the impact of policies and actions, including those designed for climate change mitigation or adaptation.
The Survey found that 74 of the 94 countries assessed fail to meet basic standards of transparency and accountability with national budgets, and that 40 countries release no meaningful budget information to their citizens.
Governing climate change adaptation in Africa and Asia
Without this information, it is difficult for the public and civil society organizations to hold government accountable or to have meaningful input into decisions about how to use public resources. Therefore, it is critical to ensure that new institutional arrangements being set up or designed to channel, manage, and administer climate finance be as transparent and accountable and ensure participation. Using a subset of Survey questions the IBP calculates the Open Budget Index OBI , a comparative ranking of the amount of budget information governments make available and opportunities for public participation.
The OBI , which assigns countries scores from 0 scant or minimum information published to extensive information published , presents a mixed picture of whether countries most likely to receive climate change funds will administer them in a transparent and responsive manner.
- Governing Climate Change - Courses - Bachelor's Degree Programmes, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
- Governing Climate Change (Global Institutions) (ebook).
- Global Governance.
On one side, there is Chile 72 , Brazil 71 , and India 67 , all of which make publicly available significant information. On the other, many likely climate finance recipients currently do not provide their public with enough budget information to allow for meaningful input into decisions or monitoring of the use of public money, including Dem.
The introduction of performance-based climate funding such as the Norwegian-Indonesia REDD partnership , for example, presents an innovative incentive-based mechanism to support action in many developing countries to reduce emissions. In the IBP also conducted a pilot study of what happens when the public asks their government for detailed information on what it is spending on development commitments, including environmental protection. Initiative found that of the 80 countries included in the exercise, only one, New Zealand , provided comprehensive answers to the questions asked.
Responses in the other countries varied in the questions answered and the amount of information provided, but overall the study found that if governments are not proactively making information available to the public, it is extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to get details on what the government is spending public money on.
Climate funds flowing into a country may be administered through a variety of mechanisms or institutions, including line ministries, local governments, and new funds specifically created to manage climate funds and projects. The first two options presume that funds would flow through existing budget processes, which ideally would be open and accountable. The advantages of this include integrating decisions about climate change mitigation and adaptation into the ongoing process of setting national priorities and managing public resources, as well as tapping existing oversight mechanisms and institutions to ensure that climate funds are used effectively and appropriately.
In countries where the normal budget process is broken — i. The alternative is for countries to establish entities, such as trust funds, that will administer climate funds separate from national or subnational budget systems. In some contexts, this may be necessary to ensure that climate funds are used as intended. However, even countries with relatively well functioning budget systems may elect to go this route, often driven by donor pressure.
For example, India and Brazil have established such funds, though both have comparatively transparent national budgets. The fund is administered by the Brazil National Development Bank BNDES , which operates substantially independent from the government budget process and systems of accountability and public participation. Given the various means and institutions that might be established within recipient countries to administer climate funds, and the importance of spending these funds effectively, the COP 16 should consider a process to establish a better reporting system for countries receiving climate funds and actions taken, as well as to promote mechanisms for involving the public and civil society in managing and overseeing how these funds are used.
Within the UNFCCC negotiations, emerging concepts around a registry or a matching facility where actions are matched with financial and technical support, as well as improved national communications for non-Annex I countries offer possible ways forward.
These administrative burdens can actually create a disincentive for governments to be more transparent. A transparent and comprehensive reporting process can help inform current negotiations and build trust and understanding between developed and developing countries.
It is also critical to allow for public climate financing to be evaluated and to flow effectively and efficiently. Detailed reporting from both donor and recipient countries should help determine whether parties are meeting their financial commitments, improve understanding of sectoral and technological investment trends, and lead to assessments of different forms of financing and whether financing results in real emissions reductions and increasing resilience.
The report analyzed the characteristics of a robust reporting system and presented a set of guiding principles. WRI then used these to identify options for improving the current reporting systems and suggested specific reporting formats for various sectors.