Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations.
Points for practitioners
The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.
AbbottKW (2014)
Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change.Transnational Environmental Law3: 57–88.
2.
AbbottKWBernsteinS (2015)
The high‐level political forum on sustainable development: Orchestration by default and design.Global Policy6: 222–233.
3.
AbbottKWHaleT (2014) Orchestrating Global Solution Networks: A Guide for Organizational Entrepreneurs.
Toronto:
Global Solution Networks.
4.
AbbottKWSnidalD (2009)
Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law42: 501–578.
5.
AbbottKWGenschelPSnidalD, et al. (2015) International Organizations as Orchestrators.
Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
6.
AbbottKWGreenJFKeohaneRO (2016)
Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance.International Organization70: 247–277.
7.
AndonovaLB (2017) Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public–Private Partnerships.
Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
8.
BäckstrandK (2011) The democratic legitimacy of global climate governance after Copenhagen. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D (eds): Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 669–684.
9.
BäckstrandKKuyperJW (2017)
The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: The UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance.Environmental Politics26: 764–788.
10.
BauerMWEgeJ (2016)
Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats.Journal of European Public Policy23: 1019–1037.
11.
BauerMWKnillCEckhardS (2017) International Bureaucracy: Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research.
London:
Springer.
12.
BauerS (2006)
Does bureaucracy really matter? The authority of intergovernmental treaty secretariats in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics6: 23–49.
13.
BauerSBuschP-OSiebenhünerB (2009) Treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. In: BiermannFSiebenhünerBSchreyöggA (eds) International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance.
London:
Routledge, pp. 174–191.
14.
BélandDOrensteinMA (2013)
International organizations as policy actors: An ideational approach.Global Social Policy13: 125–143.
15.
BetsillMDubashNPatersonM, et al. (2015)
Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape.Global Environmental Politics15: 1–10.
16.
BiermannFSiebenhünerB (2009a) Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
17.
BiermannFSiebenhünerB (2009b) The role and relevance of international bureaucracies: Setting the stage. In: BiermannFSiebenhünerB (eds) Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp. 1–14.
BulkeleyHAndonovaLBetsillM, et al. (2014) Transnational Climate Change Governance.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
20.
BuschP-O (2009) The climate Secretariat: Making a living in a straitjacket. In: BiermannFSiebenhünerB (eds) Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp. 245–264.
21.
ChanSAsseltHvHaleT, et al. (2015)
Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action.Global Policy6: 466–473.
22.
DepledgeJ (2005) The Organization of International Negotiations: Constructing the Climate Change Regime.
London:
Earthscan.
23.
DepledgeJ (2007)
A special relationship: Chairpersons and the Secretariat in the climate change negotiations.Global Environmental Politics7: 45–68.
24.
DreznerDW (2007) All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
25.
EgeJBauerMW (2013) International bureaucracies from a public administration and International Relations perspective. In: Renalda B (Ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Organization. London: Routledge, pp. 135–148.
26.
Fraser-MoleketiGJ (2003)
Quality governance for sustainable growth and development: Introduction.International Review of Administrative Sciences69: 463–470.
27.
GreenJF (2013)
Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon.Global Environmental Politics13: 1–25.
28.
HaleT (2013) How the UNFCCC Can Drive Climate Ambition in Advance of a Treaty: Record, Review, Reinforce, Recruit.
Oxford:
Blavatnik School of Government.
29.
HaleTRogerC (2014)
Orchestration and transnational climate governance.Review of International Organizations9: 59–82.
30.
HawkinsDGLakeDANielsonDL, et al. (2006) Delegation and agency in international organizations.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
31.
HickmannT (2016) Rethinking Authority in Global Climate Governance: How Transnational Climate Initiatives Relate to the International Climate Regime.
London:
Routledge.
32.
HickmannT (2017a)
The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance.International Studies Review19: 430–451.
33.
HickmannT (2017b)
Voluntary global business initiatives and the international climate negotiations: A case study of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.Journal of Cleaner Production169: 94–104.
34.
JacobsM (2016)
High pressure for low emissions: How civil society created the Paris Climate Agreement.Juncture22: 314–323.
35.
JakobiAP (2012)
International organisations and policy diffusion: The global norm of lifelong learning.Journal of International Relations and Development15: 31–64.
36.
JinnahS (2014) Post-Treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
37.
JordanAHuitemaDVan AsseltH, et al. (2018) Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action?
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
38.
JörgensHKolleckNSaerbeckB (2016)
Exploring the hidden influence of international treaty secretariats: Using social network analysis to analyse the Twitter debate on the ‘Lima Work Programme on Gender’.Journal of European Public Policy23: 979–998.
39.
JörgensHKolleckNSaerbeckB, et al. (2017) Orchestrating (bio-)diversity: The Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity as an attention-seeking bureaucracy. In: BauerMWKnillCEckhardS (eds) International Bureaucracy: Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research.
London:
Palgrave, pp. 73–95.
40.
KeohaneRONyeJS (1974)
Transgovernmental relations and international organizations.World Politics27: 39–62.
41.
MaggettiMVerhoestK (2014)
Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward.International Review of Administrative Sciences80: 239–256.
42.
MeyerJWFrankDJHironakaA, et al. (1997)
The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990.International Organization51: 623–651.
43.
MichaelowaAMichaelowaK (2016)
The growing influence of the UNFCCC Secretariat on the clean development mechanism. International Environmental AgreementsOnline First: 1–23.
44.
MitchellRB (2018)
International Environmental Agreements Database Project. Available at: https://iea.uoregon.edu/
45.
SchroederHLovellH (2012)
The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations.Climate Policy12: 23–37.
46.
SteffekJ (2013)
Explaining cooperation between IGOs and NGOs: Push factors, pull factors, and the policy cycle.Review of International Studies39: 993–1013.
47.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2011a) Momentum for Change: Launch Report.
Bonn:
UNFCCC Secretariat.
48.
UNFCCC (2011b) Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Seventeenth Session, held in Durban from November 28 to December 11, 2011: Addendum: Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Seventeenth Session. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.
49.
UNFCCC (2012) Momentum for Change in 2012: Momentum for Change – Change for Good.
Bonn:
UNFCCC Secretariat.
50.
UNFCCC (2014a) New Portal Highlights City and Private Sector Climate Action. Press release of the UNFCCC Secretariat, 11 December. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.
51.
UNFCCC (2014b) Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action on the Third Part of Its Second Session, held in Warsaw from 12 to 23 November 2013. FCCC/ADP/2013/3. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.
UNFCCC (2015b) Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Twenty-First Session, held in Paris from November 30 to December 13, 2015. Addendum: Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Twenty-First Session. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.
Van AsseltHZelliF (2014)
Connect the dots: Managing the fragmentation of global climate governance.Environmental Economics and Policy Studies16: 137–155.
63.
Van der LugtCDingwerthK (2015) Governing where focality is low: UNEP and the principles for responsible investment. In: AbbottKWGenschelPSnidalD, et al. (eds) International Organizations as Orchestrators.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–261.
64.
WiderbergO (2017)
The ‘black box’ problem of orchestration: How to evaluate the performance of the Lima–Paris Action Agenda.Environmental Politics26: 715–737.
65.
WiderbergOPattbergP (2015)
International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance: Raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC?Global Policy6: 45–56.
66.
WiderbergOVan LaerhovenF (2014)
Measuring the autonomous influence of an international bureaucracy: The Division for Sustainable Development.International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics14: 303–327.
67.
YaminFDepledgeJ (2004) The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
