Comparing Climate Policy Processes in India, Brazil, and South Africa: Domestic Engagements With International Climate Policy Frameworks

• Date: 01 June 2018
• Author: Prabhat Upadhyaya,Mikael Román,Björn-Ola Linnér,Mathias Fridahl
• Published date: 01 June 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496518767947
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Comparing Climate Policy

Processes in India, Brazil,

and South Africa:

Domestic Engagements

With International

Climate Policy

Frameworks

Prabhat Upadhyaya

1

, Mathias Fridahl

1

,

Bjo

¨rn-Ola Linne

´r

1

, and Mikael Roma

´n

2

Abstract

Using policy cycle model as a heuristic, this article studies Indian, Brazilian, and

South African engagement with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

(NAMAs) by (a) comparing NAMA policy process and (b) identifying factors driving

or limiting the framework’s domestic application. India largely remained uninter-

ested in NAMAs, Brazil aligned its domestic climate policy and NAMAs, while

South Africa had a more nuanced engagement when formulating NAMAs. Four

factors influenced these countries’ NAMA engagements: the level and necessity of

international support, the availability of domestic policy provisions to tackle climate

change, the domestic institutional capacity to coordinate interministerial function-

ing, and the role of individuals in the institutional apparatus. As an international

climate policy framework, studying NAMA engagement provides learnings for

nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement for designing the

instrument, ensuring clarity on support provisions for ratcheting up ambitions, and

enhancing institutional capacity, to expedite transition from policy formulation to

implementation and beyond.

Journal of Environment &

Development

2018, Vol. 27(2) 186–209

!The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1070496518767947

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

1

Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy

Research, Linko

¨ping University, Sweden

2

Growth Analysis, Office of Science and Innovation, Brası

´lia – DF, Brazil

Corresponding Author:

Prabhat Upadhyaya, Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Centre for Climate

Science and Policy Research, Linko

¨ping University, Sweden.

Email: upadhyayaprabhat@gmail.com

Keywords

policy process, climate policy, international policy frameworks, NAMAs, NDCs

In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, combining an international review

process with contributions from member states through the nationally deter-

mined contributions (NDCs). The foundation for this governance architecture

was laid out already in 2007 with the establishment of Nationally Appropriate

Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) under the Bali Action Plan (UNFCCC, 2007).

While NAMAs were applicable only to developing countries and mitigation

actions, NDCs apply to all countries and encompass both mitigation and adap-

tation. Both frameworks were loosely def‌ined by the international community

and relied on actions def‌ined nationally. Both can be either conditional upon the

international support or unconditional, that is, exclusively domestically sup-

ported. Thus, as international climate policy frameworks, they both share

important elements. The NAMA policy framework, in fact, portended a

‘‘hybrid multilateralism,’’ which is one of the hallmarks of the Paris

Agreement. It laid grounds for splicing together two dif‌ferent governance

traits: ‘‘state-led action def‌ined and stipulated by the parties through their

own nationally determined contributions (NDCs) as well as ef‌forts by the

UNFCCC to orchestrate transnational climate ef‌forts’’ (Kuyper, Linne

´r, &

Schroeder, 2018, pp. e497–e498). The ‘‘true signif‌icance of the Paris

Agreement’’ remains open (Cle

´menc¸ on, 2016, p. 2 0) and will be determined by

domestic measures undertaken by countries to implement NDCs. Studying a

decade of domestic policy processes to interpret, agree on, and implement

NAMAs in dif‌ferent country contexts can, therefore, provide important insights

also on how to design such an instrument for an ef‌fective orchestration of

contributions as well as the prospects of implementing and scaling up the

NDCs for meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

This article identif‌ies dif‌ferences and similarities among domestic responses to

NAMAs policy framework in three key emerging economies: India, Brazil, and

South Africa (IBSA). India played a central role in striking a compromise agree-

ment on NAMAs in 2007 (Rajamani, 2009). Despite this compromise being

backed by Brazil and South Africa, none of the IBSA countries has submitted

NAMAs to the UN NAMA-Registry or referred to NAMAs in their respective

NDC. IBSA countries continue to be considered important for the ability to

meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement but appear wary about engaging

domestically with NAMAs.

This fascinating conundrum is further explored here by a detailed examina-

tion of IBSA’s domestic NAMA policy processes. The article aims to examine

how an international climate policy framework interacts with domestic policy

Upadhyaya et al. 187