Suchergebnisse

This book provides theoretical and practical insights for effective decision making in situations that involve various types of conflict cleavages. Embedding historical analysis, negotiation analysis, political scientific analysis and game theoretical analysis in an integrated analytical framework allows a comprehensive perspective on various dilemmas and self-enforcing dynamics that inhibit decision making. The conceptualization of strategic facilitation highlights the value of leadership, chairmanship and the role of threshold states in facilitating decision making as the global climate change negotiations unfolds

Ending identity conflicts through negotiated agreements is an intractable process that is embedded complexly in the nation-building process. Ariel Hernandez looks on the complexity of the nation-building process in the Philippines and how its social and political context constrains the achievement of a peace agreement that would withhold new challenges as the process unfolds. Mediation as one of the possible modes of intervention to resolve identity conflicts is taken as the self-evident instrument to end the 40 year old conflict between the Filipino society at large and the Bangsamoro. The an

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a 'purposive new normal' because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the 'ahistoricity' (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing. [.]

Climate change negotiations require conceptual underpinnings to provide a robust negotiation framework. Principles such as the "common but differentiated responsibilities" or "polluter pays" serve as "political formula" to guide negotiators to achieve mutually acceptable outcomes. Negotiations on technical issues suchas emissions reduction often fail due to the lack of guiding principles. After decades of negotiations, the climate change negotiation system is still searching for principles, particularly when the negotiators have realized that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities seems to inhibit countries to reach an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it is, for example, increasingly seen to promote free-riding. As the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) introduced the notionof equitable access to sustainable development in the Cancun agreements in the context of a timeframe for global greenhouse gas emissions, the UNFCCC has asked international experts to come up with ideas how the newly agreed principle can be conceptualized, implemented and how it can facilitate the negotiation process, for example, by providing guidelines to overcome the divide between developed and developing countries. This paper aims to contribute its understanding of this principle from the perspective of the negotiation process.

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a "purposive new normal" because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the "ahistoricity" (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing.The academic debate on transformation has re-emerged with intensity due to it increasingly being linked to the discourse on sustainability. One important thread of this transformation–sustainability nexus is the role of governance. While the academic literature on governing T2S can already build on decades of work, the debate on the three-fold interfacing of governance, transformation and sustainability still has major gaps to fill. This paper articulates an integrated approach in understanding the governance of T2S by bringing together perspectives from sociology, political science and economics (and their sub-disciplines) as puzzle parts. Connecting the different puzzle parts contributed by the different disciplines, this paper conceptualises the four types of resources needed to make governance conducive to T2S: vision, performance, social cohesion and resilience. The next step for this paper is to use these puzzle parts to form a framework to introduce three sets of scenarios of pathways for sustainable futures, the "SDG-aligned futures". The three pathways leading to these SDG-aligned futures are political-transition-driven (or strong), societal-transition-driven (or cohesive) and economic-transition-driven (or efficient).The three scenarios for SDG-aligned futures serve on one hand as the basis for the contextualisation of transformation for a more strategic application of appropriate solutions by focussing on what governance structures, levels, processes and scales are conducive to T2S. At the same time, this approach resolves the "ahistoricity" dilemma in many concepts of T2S by highlighting that countries have different entry points when initiating T2S. The perspectives on the scenarios towards a sustainable future provide multiple entry points for each country by specifying the departing stage for a specific country that consists of a set of path dependencies resulting from the country's (1) historical experience (e.g. colonialism) and (2) national discourse (e.g. debate on the sustainable energy transition). As countries utilise the potentials of their already existing governance structures and implement policy reforms that occur within existing institutional and politico–legal structures as well as through social upheavals and fundamental changes (hence, resilience is fundamental to T2S), these pathways are aligned by the Sustainable Development Goals, leading to coherent societal priorities and policy mixes.

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a "purposive new normal" because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the "ahistoricity" (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing. [...]

Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) offer demand-led or market-based regulatory instruments that can help implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In its activities with key VSS stakeholders from Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa, the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Programme of the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) aims to help utilise the transformative potential of VSS.

Freiwillige Nachhaltigkeitsstandards (VSS) bieten nachfragegesteuerte oder marktbasierte Instrumente, die zur Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung beitragen können. Durch seine Aktivitäten mit wesentlichen VSS-Stakeholdern aus Brasilien, China, Indien, Indonesien, Maxiko und Südafrika trägt das Managing Global Governance (MGG) Programm des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) zur Nutzung des transformativen Potentials der VSS bei.Dabei sollen Verfahren zur Festsetzung und Überwachung von Standards Auswirkungen auf die (globale) Wertschöpfungskette haben (UNFSS, 2020, S. 1). VSS definieren Anforderungen, zu denen sich Produzenten, Händler, Hersteller, Einzelhändler und Dienstleister freiwillig ver pflichten und deren Einhaltung überwacht wird. Diese Anforderungen beziehen sich auf eine Vielzahl von Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten, "einschließlich des Respekts für grundlegende Menschenrechte, die Gesundheit und Sicherheit von Arbeiter*innen, die Umweltauswirkungen der Produktion, Beziehungen zum lokalen Umfeld, Raumplanung und anderen" (UNFSS, 2013, S. 3).

The work aimed to analyse the sustainability efforts – the greening – of five industry sectors in Brazil: aluminium, chemical, steel, cement, and oil and gas. These sectors were chosen because they are the industries with the highest carbon emissions. The research sought to verify the sustainability measures adopted by business and industry actors, with special emphasis on the use of Voluntary Sustainability Standards and ESG values. In order to verify the information provided by the companies, the documents that informed the measures taken by the companies and the numbers supporting their results were always sought out and explained in the text. The conclusions were that the sectors, guided by industry associations, have adopted a broad set of sustainability measures. The results of these measures, however, sometimes lack proof and sometimes lead to sporadic conduct, contrary to the precepts of environmental and social sustainability.