IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v15y2024i1p135-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Earsom

Abstract

This contribution examines whether just energy transition partnerships (JETPs), a new type of financial agreement between G7/G7‐allies and low‐to‐middle income states, can serve as accountability mechanisms for the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It identifies important structural elements from the existing literature on climate governance for holding actors to account and then assesses the extent to which they are present within JETPs. While JETPs appear in theory to offer increased potential to shore up accountability in the UNFCCC, the case of the South African JETP demonstrates that the presence of these structural elements is likely insufficient to ensure accountability vis‐à‐vis the UNFCCC. This preliminary analysis therefore finds several practical limitations to accountability within JETPs and dense governance spaces in general. It thus points to the importance of identifying the underlying conditions needed for institutional accountability structures to function as designed.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Earsom, 2024. "Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 135-141, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:135-141
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13324
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13324?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heiner von Lüpke & Charlotte Aebischer & Martha Bolaños, 2023. "International Partnerships for a Just Energy Transition: Findings from South Africa," DIW Weekly Report, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 13(5), pages 43-49.
    2. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    3. José Antonio Ocampo & Natalie Gómez-Arteaga, 2016. "Accountability in International Governance and the 2030 Development Agenda," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(3), pages 305-314, September.
    4. Jessica Omukuti & Sam Barrett & Piran C. L. White & Robert Marchant & Alina Averchenkova, 2022. "The green climate fund and its shortcomings in local delivery of adaptation finance," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(9-10), pages 1225-1240, November.
    5. Sander Chan & Thomas Hale & Andrew Deneault & Manish Shrivastava & Kennedy Mbeva & Victoria Chengo & Joanes Atela, 2022. "Assessing the effectiveness of orchestrated climate action from five years of summits," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(7), pages 628-633, July.
    6. Aarti Gupta & Harro van Asselt, 2019. "Transparency in multilateral climate politics: Furthering (or distracting from) accountability?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 18-34, March.
    7. Noémie Laurens & Clara Brandi & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2022. "Climate and trade policies: from silos to integration," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 248-253, February.
    8. Robert Falkner & Naghmeh Nasiritousi & Gunilla Reischl, 2022. "Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 480-487, April.
    9. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy: An analytical challenge for earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1854-1855, September.
    10. Oscar Widerberg & Philipp Pattberg, 2017. "Accountability Challenges in the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(1), pages 68-87, January.
    11. Grant, Ruth W. & Keohane, Robert O., 2005. "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 29-43, February.
    12. Abrar Chaudhury, 2020. "Role of Intermediaries in Shaping Climate Finance in Developing Countries—Lessons from the Green Climate Fund," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-17, July.
    13. David G. Victor & Marcel Lumkowsky & Astrid Dannenberg, 2022. "Determining the credibility of commitments in international climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(9), pages 793-800, September.
    14. Jessica F. Green, 2017. "The strength of weakness: pseudo-clubs in the climate regime," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 41-52, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    2. Michelle Scobie, 2018. "Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 769-787, April.
    3. Adam Bumpus & Thu-Ba Huynh & Sophie Pascoe, 2019. "Making REDD+ Transparent: Opportunities for MobileTechnology," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 85-117, November.
    4. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    5. Catacora-Vargas, Georgina & Alvarado, Víctor & Rankovic, Aleksandar & Tambutti, Marcia, 2022. "Governance approaches and practices in Latin America and the Caribbean for transformative change for biodiversity," Documentos de Proyectos 48542, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    6. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    7. Nasiritousi, Naghmeh & Hjerpe, Mattias & Buhr, Katarina, 2014. "Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-184.
    8. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    9. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    10. Marin-Burgos, Victoria & Clancy, Joy S. & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Contesting legitimacy of voluntary sustainability certification schemes: Valuation languages and power asymmetries in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 303-313.
    11. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    12. Lena Partzsch, 2023. "Missing the SDGs: Political accountability for insufficient environmental action," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(3), pages 438-450, June.
    13. Schouten, Greetje & Bitzer, Verena, 2015. "The emergence of Southern standards in agricultural value chains: A new trend in sustainability governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 175-184.
    14. van Oosten, Cora & Runhaar, Hens & Arts, Bas, 2021. "Capable to govern landscape restoration? Exploring landscape governance capabilities, based on literature and stakeholder perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Klusáček, Petr & Alexandrescu, Filip & Osman, Robert & Malý, Jiří & Kunc, Josef & Dvořák, Petr & Frantál, Bohumil & Havlíček, Marek & Krejčí, Tomáš & Martinát, Stanislav & Skokanová, Hana & Trojan, Ja, 2018. "Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-39.
    16. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    17. Röckmann, Christine & van Leeuwen, Judith & Goldsborough, David & Kraan, Marloes & Piet, Gerjan, 2015. "The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-162.
    18. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    19. Tobias Böhmelt & Gabriele Spilker, 2016. "The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 67-89, February.
    20. Craik, Neil & Gardner, Holly & McCarthy, Daniel, 2017. "Indigenous – corporate private governance and legitimacy: Lessons learned from impact and benefit agreements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 379-388.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:1:p:135-141. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.