The 2-degrees target of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 7 on energy are intrinsically intertwined and highlight the urgency of an effective and integrated approach on climate change and energy. However, there are over a hundred international and transnational institutions with different characteristics and priorities that aim to address climate and energy-related targets. While prior research has contributed useful insights into the complexity of climate and energy governance, respectively, an integrated and coherent analysis of the climate-energy nexus is lacking. This chapter therefore maps, visualizes, and analyzes this nexus, i.e. institutions that seek to govern climate change and energy simultaneously. In addition, the chapter zooms in on three specific subsets of institutions: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. The mapping and analysis are based on a new dataset and provide first insights into the gaps, overlaps, and varying degrees of complexity of the climate-energy nexus and across its subfields. Moreover, the chapter serves as the empirical basis for further analyses of coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness, and as the first step in creating a knowledge base to guide actors who seek to navigate the institutionally complex landscape of the climate-energy nexus.

Fossil fuel subsidy reform can contribute to both climate change and sustainable development goals. However, subsidies to fossil fuel consumption and production continue to persist in developed and developing countries. International cooperation can play an important role in promoting or hindering reform. This chapter examines the coherence of international governance of fossil fuel subsidy reform. The chapter discusses the emergence of a core norm of fossil fuel subsidy reform, the distribution of membership across international institutions, and the various governance functions fulfilled by the international institutions active in this area. To further assess coherence, the chapter focuses on a subset of three international coalitions active in the area of fossil fuel subsidy reform: the Group of 20 (G20), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. The chapter identifies an emerging division of labour, with different institutions taking charge of various governance functions. Where activities do overlap, they generally appear to reinforce one another. With respect to the G20, APEC, and the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, the high level of consistency appears to be the result of planned coordination, overlapping memberships, as well as a brokering role taken on by some countries. test

How does institutional complexity affect effectiveness? This chapter addresses this question for the three policy fields studied in this book: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon markets. The chapter takes a comprehensive perspective across the three case studies by examining three dimensions of effectiveness: output (generating regulations and intrastructure), outcome (changing behaviour), and impact (solving the problem). The study relies on a two-track approach, integrating assessments by researchers and interviews with key stakeholders. The results show how the considerable institutional complexity in the climate-energy nexus has consequences for effectiveness. Notwithstanding the methodical challenges for evaluating effectiveness under conditions of institutional complexity, these insights demonstrate that such an assessment is of high importance and should be continued for other contexts of global governance. In particular, the findings of this chapter help to identify suitable management options – i.e. options for formally regulating the linkage between institutions – for the climate-energy nexus. With these suggestions and its conceptual and empirical novelty, the chapter contributes to a variety of literatures – on climate and energy governance, on institutional complexity, and on effectiveness – while being of interest to different stakeholders operating in the climate-energy nexus.

The concluding chapter first summarizes some of the volume’s main results along the four evaluative themes. In terms of coherence and management, the three policy fields under scrutiny – renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing – are roughly marked by coordination, rather than competition or outright harmony. Regarding legitimacy, the specializations and work backgrounds of stakeholders lead to considerable variations in their perceptions of institutions. For effectiveness, institutional complexity plays both a supportive and a hindering role across all three cases. Following the summary, a series of policy recommendations is developed, including: improving awareness of each other’s activities to avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting messages; aligning interpretations of central concepts, i.e. what constitutes renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing; building stronger connections to counterparts in other areas of the climate-energy nexus and beyond; and entrusting one institution with an orchestrator role. Finally, the chapter suggests a future research agenda on the governance of the climate-energy nexus, e.g. to learn more about the causes of institutional complexity, to identify conditions for successful management efforts, and to examine further subfields and even other domains outside the climate-energy nexus.

This chapter establishes four evaluative themes that will be employed across this volume to analyze the institutional complexity of policy fields in the climate-energy nexus: coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Coherence among institutions is conceptualized along four dimensions: convergence on an overarching core norm for the policy field, balanced coverage and distribution of memberships (private, public, hybrid), balanced coverage and distribution of governance functions (standards and commitments, operational activities, information and networking, financing), and mechanisms underlying cross-institutional relations (cognitive, normative, behavioural). Management will be examined according to types of managing agents, political levels (from domestic to global), and the consequences of management efforts in enhancing coherence. Legitimacy will be assessed along nine dimensions, among them expertise, transparency, accountability, or procedural and distributive fairness. Effectiveness, finally, will be examined in terms of normative and legal output produced by the institutions, their behaviour-changing outcome, and their ultimate problem-solving impact. Altogether, the four themes and their dimensions make up a novel framework for an in-depth analysis of a governance nexus. They help us examine a variety of important questions in a comparative research design, combining a high level of ambition with feasibility and novelty.

In recent years there has been a proliferation of international institutions that address climate change and energy governance, not least in the field of renewable energy. Given scarce resources, policy-makers need to prioritize which institutions to engage with. Central to this choice are considerations of the institutions’ legitimacy. The aim of this chapter is to understand how the legitimacy of international institutions is perceived under conditions of institutional complexity – i.e. in a context, where multiple actors work on the same issue area without overarching coordination. A questionnaire-based study examines common understandings of what makes an institution legitimate and how these understandings diverge amongst policy-makers and key stakeholder groups from different countries. Theoretically, the chapter unpacks the meaning of legitimacy under institutional complexity. Empirically, based on mixed methods, the chapter offers an assessment of legitimacy of a set of climate and energy governance institutions with different but overlapping mandates (the Clean Energy Ministerial, International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). This chapter thus provides societally-relevant insights to the literature on legitimacy, with implications for how to strengthen climate and energy governance.

The introduction first explains the rationale and theoretical and empirical contributions of the edited volume. The book seeks to address a considerable gap in knowledge of the nature of the relationship between institutions governing the climate-energy nexus in a multilevel context. In particular, there is scant research on consequences on the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance arrangements and the climate-energy nexus as a whole. For an in-depth analysis of institutional complexity in the nexus, we selected three policy fields as case studies: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. We made this choice since the three cases represent urgent and major components of the climate-energy nexus, since they vary considerably in the number and mix of institutions that govern them at the international level, and since they differ in their positioning within the climate-energy nexus – with carbon pricing primarily a climate change issue, renewable energy lying at the core of energy governance, and fossil fuel subsidy reform falling in between. The chapter concludes with an outline of the ccontributions to the book, structured along the volume’s three parts on mapping (I) coherence and management (II), and legitimacy and effectiveness (III).

Decarbonizing our energy systems is required for a sustainable future, and an uptake of renewable energy plays a central role in this trajectory. Nevertheless, the growth rate of renewables is too slow to meet either the ‘substantial increase’ as intended by Sustainable Development Goal 7, or the two degrees target set by the Paris Agreement. The institutional complex of global renewable energy governance is currently occupied by 46 public, private, and multi-stakeholder institutions, with different characteristics and priorities. Can such a complex governance system provide greater effectiveness for the global energy transition? As a first step in answering this question, this chapter examines coherence and management across the sub-field of renewable energy, and among three selected multi-stakeholder partnerships in further detail. The study builds on an analysis of institutional constellations, a qualitative review of official documents, and semi-structured interviews with climate and energy governance stakeholders and experts. The chapter finds that the renewable energy sub-field is marked by coordination, but simultaneously questions if it requires more than that to iron out existing controversies, trade-offs and potential conflicts. The research results therewith facilitate future performance assessments of global renewable energy governance, and help identify opportunities to enhance its effectiveness.

International institutions established to promote carbon pricing and carbon markets (including carbon taxation, emissions trading and offsets) constitute a rapidly growing alphabet soup of acronyms straddling the boundaries between public and private organisations. All institutions within the carbon pricing sub-field subscribe to the norm that climate change should be addressed through placing a price on emissions. The various institutions perform different roles. While several of the private institutions set standards and commitments regulating how private actors should trade emission allowances and offset emissions, public and hybrid institutions tend to play information dissemination and networking roles focused on supporting political decisions to implement carbon pricing and to link carbon markets. The carbon pricing sub-field is characterised by coordination or co-existence, with significant attempts to establish a division of labour, and only little outright competition or conflict. Focusing on the interlinkages between the UNFCCC and the World Bank institutions that address carbon pricing, we found that also the relationships between these two particular sides are characterised by close coordination. This coordination is informed by cognitive and normative interaction mechanisms, while differences between both sides are managed in a bottom-up, incremental manner.