Final Report Summary - CLIMATEGOV (Managing interactions between international agreements: dealing with diversity in global climate governance) The goal of the research project 'Managing interactions between international agreements: dealing with diversity in global climate governance' (CLIMATEGOV) was to provide insights into the consequences and management of institutional interactions in global climate governance. Due to the intrinsic complexity (or: 'wickedness') of the climate problem, a wide range of international legal instruments is of relevance, covering topics such as biological diversity, desertification, ozone depletion, oceans and seas, energy, and trade and investment. Therefore, the basic assumption underlying this research project is to understand and appraise that the totality of global climate governance is no longer apposite to focus on the United Nations (UN) climate regime in isolation. To show how climate-related regimes may affect each other, the researcher conducted in-depth studies of the consequences of interactions between the UN climate regime and: (1) the international clean technology agreements, with a focus on the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP); (2) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), with a focus on the issue of forest carbon sinks; and (3) the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with a focus on the use of unilateral climate-related trade measures at the border. For each of these case studies, the causes, pathways, and consequences of interactions were examined and compared. In addition, the research examined the response to the interaction, distinguishing between formal, legal techniques of conflict avoidance and resolution, and informal ways of 'interaction management', focusing in particular on institutional cooperation and coordination at the international level. Furthermore, autonomous action to manage the overlap by non-state actors at the national and subnational level was also taken into account. The research built on the theoretical discussions on the fragmentation of international law, adding to that body of literature an emphasis on positive interactions between different regimes, and showing how the subject of international environmental law in general, and international climate change governance specifically, were understudied by international legal scholars. The research further built on the international relations literature on institutional interactions and interaction management, adding to that a focus on legal techniques to avoid and resolve normative conflicts. Both bodies of literature have contributed to knowledge on the consequences and management of regime interactions, but there are no in-depth studies into the various consequences of institutional interactions in the area of global climate governance, a gap this research addressed by studying and comparing three different types of interactions in this issue area. Furthermore, both international lawyers and international relations scholars have largely overlooked interactions involving non-legally binding agreements, even though their use is becoming increasingly important in global climate governance. Again, the research addressed this lacuna by also including the interactions with 'soft law' arrangements like the APP. The research shows that pursuing harmonious treaty interpretation, whereby treaty interpreters take into account extraneous rules, could avoid conflicts between climate-related treaties, for instance in the case of conflict between the climate and trade regimes, although the results cast doubt on the assumption that this necessarily needs to happen through a principle of 'systemic integration' or 'mutual supportiveness', which some have suggested is embodied in Article 31.3(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Second, it indicated that in the phase of international climate lawmaking, negotiators could take a step back, and carefully consider the implications of what is being negotiated for other regimes, and carefully draft provisions to regulate their interrelationships to that end. The research also points out that many of the tensions involving the climate regime cannot be adequately be captured by traditional legal definitions of conflict thereby limiting the usefulness of many of the legal techniques discussed in the legal literature. Furthermore, one finding is that applying such techniques - leading to a normative hierarchy - is in fact undesirable in cases of interactions in global climate governance. The research also shows that informal institutional cooperation can complement the formal legal techniques for managing the fragmentation of international climate law. It shows, in particular, how various secretariats as well as decision-making bodies in climate-related regime have started to address overlapping issues, with a view to avoiding conflict and maximising synergies, for instance in the case of the climate-biodiversity overlap. However, it is clear that also in this case there are limitations to what can be achieved. Secretariats' mandates are not always clearly defined, and to avoid a rebuke by parties, secretariats will tend to stay away from intruding too much into the decision-making process through external cooperation. This is linked with more general concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of institutional cooperation. These concerns are to some extent based on traditional notions of state consent, but they point to the real risk that actors in one regime are side-lined through the use of norms borrowed from another. Finally, the research shows that interactions between 'soft law' and 'hard law' remain largely overlooked by international law and international relations scholars alike. Given the increasing importance of informal, non-legally binding agreements between state and non-state actors in global climate governance (as exemplified by the APP and other international clean technology agreements), this development requires more theoretical and empirical attention. The three case studies provide a solid basis for policy and research recommendations. For the case study on the APP, the research showed that in the area of clean technology cooperation, certain tasks, such as knowledge and experience sharing, and linking funding to projects, could (continue to) be carried out by the climate regime, while other tasks, such as the choice of which energy technology to cooperate on (and to fund) could be carried out in more informal settings in international clean technology agreements. For policymakers, this leads to the recommendation that a clear division of labour would help ensure coherence, provided that clear linkages between UN and non-UN initiatives are clearly made. A recommendation flowing from the second case study is that interaction management by non-state actors, such as certification bodies and non-governmental organisations, could assist in ensuring that the climate regime contributes to biodiversity objectives in the short term. Linking intergovernmental action to such non-state initiatives thus provides a clear option for policymakers. However, this in itself does not resolve tensions between the climate and biodiversity regimes, meaning that strengthened institutional cooperation between the administrative and decision-making bodies of the climate and biodiversity regimes is still warranted. A recommendation from the third case study is that international coordination - preferably in informal settings - on the use of unilateral trade-related climate measures could resolve some of the political tensions surrounding this tool of climate policy. The research project further contributed to key training objectives for the research fellow. The research resulted in several publications for prestigious journals and book publishers, and a book proposal is currently under consideration. The research was disseminated at several academic and policy-related conferences. In addition to the research activities, the fellow participated in various teaching activities, including an organisation of his first full course at the university. An indicator of the project's specific socio-economic impact is that both the fellow and the scientist in charge were asked to join an international expert panel on climate change, biodiversity and forests. Another indicator is the researcher's appointment as editor for the Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, as well as his appointment at a key European Union (EU) environmental think tank. Finally, as a sign of the success of the project, and the potential for future intra-European collaboration, the fellow will stay on at the host institution as a visiting researcher. Project website: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/vanasseltharro.php
