Criteria for Selection of Abstracts
Relevance: Does the abstract clearly address or respond to one (or more) of the specific themes and questions outlined in the Call for Papers (see annex 1)? Does it provide policy-relevant conclusions?
Theory: Does the abstract reveal how the paper will address the theoretical framework of the Conference, i.e. how institutional rules, governance structures and processes affect decision-making to address climate change and foster a green economy (see annex 2)?
Analysis: Does the abstract provide an interesting analytical perspective (as opposed to a solely descriptive point of view)? Does it offer and answer, a research question and/or hypothesis which is of policy relevance?
Originality: Abstracts with original material, that has not been published or presented elsewhere, are encouraged. However, this is not an exclusive criterion. The decisive factor is the relevance of the abstract.
Length: The requested length of abstract is 400-500 words in order to allow the Review Committee to get a good sense of the merits of the proposed paper, including its theoretical dimension and/or potential policy recommendations. Shorter abstracts may not allow such an assessment.
Language: All abstracts must be submitted in English.
Annex 1: Conference Themes
The conference seeks to address a number of specific themes, grouped within two clusters. The first cluster is concerned with different levels of governance and the linkages among them. The second cluster deals with specialized topics, including governance of climate change science, financing and forestry.
Levels of Governance
Global, Regional and Intergovernmental Governance: How do institutions that facilitate climate change governance at the global, regional and intergovernmental level (e.g. the UNFCCC, IPCC, UNEP, regional bodies, transnational networks, etc.) perform in terms of effectiveness, openness, transparency, and accountability? What are the opportunities to enhance these institutions and to strengthen the coherence of global climate change governance within the international environmental governance architecture?
National, Sub-national and Local Level Governance: What institutional structures and mechanisms are emerging at the national, sub-national and local level to address climate change adaptation, mitigation and advance a green economy? How do these institutions perform in terms of stakeholder engagement and in fostering effective action?
Multilevel Governance: What issues of climate change adaptation, mitigation and green economic development require coherent multi-level governance? What are key challenges to achieve such coherence and how can effective stakeholder engagement across levels of governance be achieved?
Specialized Governance Topics
Governance of Climate Change Science: What are features of effective institutions and governance processes to generate scientific climate change knowledge at the international, national and local level, respectively? What institutional factors may impede effective governance of climate change science?
Governance of Climate Change Financing: Given the significant financial transactions that will occur under a new climate change regime, how can institutions assure transparency, accountability and equity of financing, both at the donor/investor and recipient level?
Governance of Climate Change Forestry: Given the prominent role that forestry issues are playing within the new international climate change regime (i.e. REDD+), how can institutions assure the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of climate related forestry governance? What are good governance practices and how can related challenges be addressed effectively?
Annex 2: Theoretical Context
According to Douglas North, institutions provide the “rules of the game in society,” or more generally, “the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (North 1990). By regularizing rules of engagement, institutions stabilize the behavior and interaction of agents, create predictability, and, hence, help avoid conflict (March and Olsen 1989). Yet, institutions are not necessarily neutral mechanisms. By providing a source of constraint, reward, or punishment, they affect how authority is constituted, exercised, controlled, and redistributed (Olsen 2007). By controlling whose voices get heard institutions may recognize certain actors and exclude others. Or, by defining “vocabulary” and the legitimacy of arguments, criticism, or justification, institutions can define whose claims of justice are accepted (March and Olsen 2004). All these perspectives suggest that institutions influence outcomes by becoming structures of power (Moe 2005). John Ferejohn observes (2003) that a significant part of political contestation is concerned with preserving or altering institutions to achieve political goals and that, therefore, “something valuable must be at stake in them.”
Despite the important role that institutions and organizations play in shaping a transformation to climate resilient and low carbon development, knowledge gaps remain concerning how institutional factors such as membership, transparency and stakeholder engagement rules, as well as informal institutional rules shape the dynamics of decision-making and, through this, decision-outcomes and implementation. Equally important, there is limited understanding of the intersection (Gunningham 1998) or interplay (Young 2002) between institutions at various levels of government and across government sectors, or what Ostrom (2007) refers to as “nested structures of rules within rules, within further rules.” Finally, given the growing mobilization of civil society, questions arise concerning how stakeholder engagement rules foster (or impede) climate resilient and green development. In order to address these knowledge gaps the objective of the2nd Yale-UNITAR Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy is toadvance institutional analysis that can help to address real world policy problems and challenges.