Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis,
vol. V, 1, 2013, p. 101 - 102
Post-Kyoto climate governance: Confronting the politics of scale, ideology, and knowledge
Asim Zia, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, XX+204 p.
ISBN 978-0-415-60125-2 (hbk)
Reviewed by IGOR SÎRODOEV, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Republic of Moldova
Numerous changes in global and regional climates have been observed, documented and studied from the viewpoints of various sciences and at different scales (IPCC, 2007). On the one hand, changes in global, and, especially, regional, climate represent the triggering factor of alterations in ecosystems and in the environment of those regions, affecting people's welfare as well. On the other hand, changes of regional economic relationships, economic growth or decay, can diminish or accentuate negative impact on the environment and quality of life. Thus, it might be difficult to find the determinant factor for the changes at the regional level in certain economic contexts. Here, multidisciplinary and complex approaches would give better results.
At a first glance, the book by Asim Zia appears to be quite far from regional analysis: its title, “Post-Kyoto climate governance”, suggests that in the book, some approaches for developing the climate governance regime after the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 will be presented. In addition to this obvious theme, the book “takes a trans-disciplinary perspective to identify the causes of failure in developing of (current – I.S.) international climate policy regime”. However, after a more careful examination of the book, an aspect catches attention of a regional analyst/planner. It is related to the theoretical framework of this policy-analysis study. The most characteristic climate governance issues were passed through a double sieve of the critical analysis: three theoretical perspectives (“rational”, “constructivist”, and “complexity”) and three “critical policy analytical lenses” (scale, ideology, and knowledge). Thus, the scale “lens” is related to temporal and spatial discounting as well as to synergies and trade-offs in complex systems; the ideology “lens” focuses on the risk, its uncertainty and its perception in complex societies; the knowledge “lens” deals with market approaches to climate governance (greenhouse gases emission entitlements, accountability etc.). The “complexity” perspective, which suggests that not just the atmosphere must be taken into consideration in climate change governance, opens a new view on the trans-scale perspective of the climate change governance of territorial systems at various levels, from local to global.
In his discourse, the author adopts the position of those researchers (“constructivists, social psychologists and critical theorists/political ecologists”, in his terminology) who do not consider Kyoto Protocol's legacy “as very useful in terms of mitigating anthropogenic climate change”. Actually, the author argues that Bretton-Woods institutions (United Nations, the World Bank etc.) do not constitute a system that would be promoting harmonious and unidirectional environmental policy; that these institutions are not able to cope with current environmental challenges (global climate change, global food insecurity, and global biodiversity loss). These institutions, being designed with the specific purpose of stabilization of the post-WWII world, fail when trying to cope with current environmental challenges: “WTO is promoting deforestation, while UN-REDD and UNEP programs are promoting forest conservation; where the World Bank is promoting unfettered economic development, while the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is promoting biodiversity conservation” (p. 14). The book strongly criticizes their current policies, which seem to have totally opposite targets.
The author advocates the importance of complexity theorists, which “can bring new insights in informing this global policy discourse” (p. 15). The author argues that “a complex systems based adaptive, decentralized and democratically anchored governance of coupled human and natural systems could be used as guideposts to adequately cope with global environmental and social crises” (p. 162). According to the author's opinion, the out-dated Bretton-Woods institutions should be replaced by the new ones, based on the complex systems approach. The latter would facilitate shifting “from expert-based international organizations to democratically-anchored governance networks” (p. 11). Within such networks regional entities would enjoy more power in climate governance debates and decision-making. Thus, instead of more or less directive approach, currently promoted by those Bretton Woods institutions, whose activity affects global challenges, the climate policy would result from the democratic dialog within the networks specifically designed for governing social ecological systems. In such a way, “human civilization is called upon... not to control, but to enable and adapt, and partially shape what will emerge” (p. 9). Unlike control, which implies certain robustness of its structures, adaptation and shaping are highly flexible. The latter allows regional systems “transition(ing) in and out of multiple stable states, or even exist(ing) far from equilibrium” (p. 9).
This approach is particularly attractive for regional analysts and urban planners. In such a way, they would have more meaningful contribution to climate governance, while climate policy would pay more attention to regional peculiarities. A critical mass of regional opinions would be able to significantly shape the global climate governance discourse. I believe this book would serve as excellent starting point for involving territorial systems approach into climate policy debates, and, ultimately, into climate governance architecture of the post-Kyoto era.
Reference
IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report, Geneva, IPCC, 104 p.