Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change

11. Interplay Management in the Climate, Energy, and Development Nexus

11 Interplay Management in the Climate, Energy, and Development Nexus Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Marcel T. J. Kok The importance of integrating the three pillars of sustainable development —economic, social, and environmental—has been underscored in virtually every global policy process since the Brundtland Report was published in 1987. Even during the 1980s it was realized that environmental policies alone would not be able to ensure the attainment of environmental objectives (Lafferty and Hovden 2003). With the years has come growing recognition of the need for policies aimed specifically at the root causes of environmental problems and not merely at their symptoms. This requires the full involvement of all economic sectors in realizing environmental objectives. Equally weighty arguments can be made from the angle of economic development and social development: objectives in these domains are unsustainable unless they include the environmental dimension. Interplay management (see Stokke and Oberthür in this volume) is concerned with realizing coherent governance for sustainable development , whether among different levels of policymaking (vertical interplay) or among different sectors of policymaking relevant to a specific topic (horizontal interplay). Interplay management is particularly challenging from the perspective of sustainable development as it requires realizing integration across scales, time, and sectors (UNEP 2007, 301–360), and within large institutional complexes that have often emerged without planned integration. In this chapter we analyze integration (as defined below) in current global governance in the nexus of energy, development, and climate change and the associated institutional complex. In particular, we inquire how such integration can be achieved through improved interplay management. To answer that question, we specify functional interdependencies among the three policy domains, describe the essential elements of the related institutional complex, and identify possible means for 286 Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Marcel T. J. Kok interplay management. The urgent need for integration among these domains provides strong motivation for understanding more about their dynamics and interrelationships. While the nexus of development, energy, and climate change has particular characteristics, the features of our object of study are not unique. An improved understanding of interplay management and the institutional complex in this area is therefore relevant to other domains as well. We are looking at a nexus of three very broad policy domains with multiple functional linkages in several directions, and in which the overall objectives of the main actors in each domain often diverge significantly. Furthermore, the type and number of global norms (including legally binding treaties and non-legally binding norms) differ significantly from one domain to another. This chapter proceeds as follows. First we outline the analytical approach, then briefly sketch the functional linkages among the three policy domains. This is followed by an analysis of global governance and the associated institutions in each domain, focusing on the degree of legalization. Subsequently we analyze the directions of integration efforts at the climate-development, climate-energy, and energy-development domain interfaces, individually and for the entire nexus collectively. In the final section we draw some conclusions concerning the conditions for successful interplay management of an institutional complex in the broader context of sustainable development. Analyzing Interplay Management There are weighty arguments for interplay management to support integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development. To explore how such integration may be achieved, we suggest analyzing two aspects, the degree of legalization and the direction of integration. Degree of Legalization Interplay management to support integration may employ measures such as communication, policies and programs, organizational mergers or the adoption of common norms (often referred to as “institutions”), and organizational integration.1 Legalization is a special form of institutionalization characterized by the adoption of (systems of) norms that have varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation associated with them (Abbott et al. 2000). Hard international institutions (also referred to as “hard law”) usually come in the form of treaties; they score rela- Interplay Management in the Climate, Energy, and Development Nexus 287 tively high on these parameters (Abbott and Snidal 2000), while softer institutions (“soft law”) score lower and may include codes of conduct, for example. Legalization is an important avenue for interplay management, for two reasons. First, once in place, institutions are difficult to change. The very purpose of developing institutions is to stabilize behavior over time, so they are intentionally made difficult to change. This also means that, in the many situations in which institutions have been developed...