特朗普“去气候化”政策对全球气候治理的影响

美国特朗普政府宣布退出《巴黎协定》是当前全球气候治理中最受舆论关注的问题,对事态发展趋势的判断和事件影响的评估是最为亟需的。本文系统分析了特朗普政府上任后推行的一系列"去气候化"政策,以及其退出《巴黎协定》的主要动因和可能形式,同时量化评估了这些内政外交的"倒退"对美国实施国家自主贡献目标以及全球气候治理格局的实质影响,并据此提出了中国应对全球气候治理新形势变化的对策和建议。研究表明,特朗普政府"美国优先"的能源政策根植于复兴制造业和加大基础设施投资的经济利益动机,随着特朗普"去气候化"进程持续发酵,诸多气候政策面临存续风险,美国实施国家自主贡献将面临严峻挑战,"倒行政策"将有可能使美国温室气体排放出现反弹。如果不考虑中、高危气候政策,美国2025年温室气体排放也仅能相对2005年下降11.0%—14.9%,距离下降26%—28%的国家自主贡献目标相去甚远。同时,特朗普政府拒绝继续履行向发展中国家提供气候资金支持的义务,将有可能导致绿色气候基金拖欠资金总额上升117%,并进一步挫伤全球低碳投资的信心。没有美国的全球气候治理3.0时代将呈现出新的复杂特征,并不可避免地造成减排、资金和领导力缺口的持续扩大,也不排除后续会出现消极的跟随者,整体进程将可能进入一个低潮周期。虽然国际社会对中国引领全球气候治理充满期待,但中国仍应审慎对待,长远谋划应对气候变化的内政外交战略,而不应将"气候举旗"看作是一蹴而就的短期策略,对各种要求中国发挥"领导作用"的说法保持清醒头脑。在今后气候谈判中,美国仍有较大可能会二次"要价",中国作为排放大国的压力依然不容小觑,中美气候关系需要再定位。     

“十三五”时期中国环境监管体制改革的形势、目标与若干建议

本文构建了包括监管的立法、组织体系、监管权力配置、监管工具与程序、问责机制、监管能力等要素在内的环境监管体制分析框架,从污染物排放趋势、国家制度建设等角度分析了"十三五"时期中国环境监管体制改革面临的挑战、目标和思路。"十三五"时期是中国生态文明建设的重要时期,完善环境监管制度是推进生态文明制度体系建设的重要内容。面对严重环境污染所带来的挑战,在此期间加快环境监管体制改革、提高环境监管有效性是切实实现治污减排的根本保证。完善环境监管体系、改进监管方式、创新监管手段是建立治污减排长效机制的基础和前提,也是完善环境治理体系的重要内容。按照市场经济条件下政府依法行政的要求,中国环境监管体制改革的目标,就是要按照合法性、独立性、透明性、可问责性、专业性和执法能力、可信性等原则建立和完善现代环境监管体制,为此必须从专门立法、组织结构、权力分配、问责机制、监管程序与工具、监管能力建设等各方面推进改革。本文提出了"十三五"时期环境监管体制改革的思路及若干建议,主要包括:加快修订环保法律法规,提高法律的可操作性,推进环境司法常态化、规范化和专门化,进一步提升环境监管法治化水平;从纵向、横向上优化环境监管组织结构,强化区域层级的监管与督查功能,强化中央层级环境监管机构对环境信息的获取能力;优化环境保护主管部门机构设置以及相关职能,建立并完善内部机构的协调机制;完善环境监管的内外部问责机制,把做实对监管者的监管机制作为优化环境监管体制的抓手;强化对监管工具的顶层设计,做实监管程序中关键环节,建立环境监管影响评估制度;加强环境监管能力建设,推进环境监管制度队伍职业化发展,保障各级环境监管机构具有充分履职的能力。环境监管体制的改革和完善,是国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的重要内容。     

Urban sustainable energy development: A case study of the city of Philadelphia

Cities throughout the world are key sites for energy sustainability activities. However, analysis of such efforts to date has focused on a sub-set of atypical cities: early adopters and/or world cities. This article undertakes a case-study analysis for an ordinary city, Philadelphia, PA in order to assess the extent to which prior research provides adequate policy explanation for ordinary cities and to gain empirical insight on two under-researched aspects: policy actors, and the policy-making and implementation sites (action sites) for urban energy sustainability. Overall, the types of policy drivers, modes of governance, and enabling factors and barriers in the Philadelphia case fit with prior studies. Focusing on actors and action sites, however, offers insight on the city’s relative policy-making approach based on “non-controversy”, the key role of third-sector actors in both policy-making and implementation, and the diversification of action sites through external-level policy-making operationalised locally nevertheless at the expense of reduced control by urban actors. These findings lead to recommendations for urban energy sustainability research and practice.     

Cause,catalyst or conjunction? The influence of the Habitats Directive on policy instrument choice in Member States

In the process of implementing EU policy, Member States sometimes introduce new policy instruments in cases where this is not obligatory. To better understand this phenomenon, this paper reviews three cases in which new instruments emerged and develops a methodology to trace back the influence of EU Directives on instrument choice. The method is illustrated by a narrative of the emergence of new management planning instruments during the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive in three EU Member States: Finland, Hungary and the Netherlands. Three key features of a policy instrument are defined, namely, its authoritative force, action content and governance design. These are used to measure the contribution of the Habitats Directive compared to other potential explanatory causes for the emergence of the new policy instrument. In all three reviewed countries a nested causal relationship between the Habitats Directive and the introduction of the new policy instrument is identified. Based on the relative contribution of the Habitats Directive to the emergence of the new instrument a distinction is made whether the Directive acted as a cause, catalyst or if conjunction occurred.     

Metagovernance and policy forum outputs in Swiss environmental politics

Policy forums are lightly institutionalized and stable forms of governance networks that include administrative authorities, interest groups, and scientists. They are said to produce different types of outputs, from simple actor coordination to position papers and implementation documents, but their productivity has also been questioned. Metagovernance strategies can improve the capability of policy forums to produce outputs. To determine how different metagovernance strategies influence the capability of forums to produce joint position papers, 29 policy forums in the Swiss environmental sector are compared through a qualitative comparative analysis. Results indicate that metagovernance strategies such as state actors as forum members or majority decision rules need to be combined with small forum size or low actor heterogeneity. Furthermore, forum foundation by the state complicates the production of position papers.     

Simulative governance: on the collaborative narrative of civil society participation in the CDM stakeholder framework

The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is often cited as an exemplar of new, hybrid forms of global environmental governance operating at the public–private interface. Practically, enacting this arrangement involves a wide range of non-state actors. This broad involvement is here assumed to mark a shift towards more polycentric and networked modes of governance in which agents collaborate as ‘stakeholders’ in the process of consensual rule-setting and implementation. Using post-political critique, the depoliticising effects of the stakeholder framework on civil society actors are interrogated, using formal and informal participation opportunities to raise concerns regarding specific CDM projects. The analysis suggests that the CDM’s collaborative narrative of stakeholding structurally fails to stimulate public (re)engagement and is, instead, a prime example of simulative governance that struggles to achieve the simultaneity of two incompatibilities: the participatory revolution and the post-political turn.     

Globalization’s limits to the environmental state? Integrating telecoupling into global environmental governance

Globalization entails increased interdependence and interconnectivities among distal regions and social-ecological systems. This global interregional connectedness – telecoupling – gives rise to specific sustainability challenges, which require new governance solutions. Moving beyond ‘scaling-up’ governance to address global environmental problems, and exploring the implications of telecoupling for state-led environmental governance, ways the state can effectively address telecoupled environmental issues both within and beyond national borders are addressed, drawing on the example of soy trade between Brazil and Germany. This builds on recent contributions to the literature on governance of interregional ecological challenges to elaborate potential policy and governance options, ranging from classical bilateral, multilateral, and international agreements, to information-based, economic, and hybrid governance modes. While telecoupled environmental problems create governance challenges related to scale, knowledge gaps, coordination, and state capacity, the state has an important role to play. To explore this further, interdisciplinary inquiry is required that includes but moves beyond the state.     

岷江上游流域水电梯级开发的生态环境需水研究

本文通过分析岷江上游水电梯级开发对生态环境的主要影响,确定维持流域生态平衡的最小生态环境需水量测算方法。经测算,岷江上游的生态环境需水量占流域多年平均流量的6%～33%,越靠近源头,生态环境需水量所占比例越大。建议提高岷江上游生态环境需水量所占比例,将生态环境需水占比超过20%的茂县以上河段设为禁止开发区域,取消禁止开发区域内原规划的6级电站。同时在已建电站坝下和各县域出境断面设置生态流量监控断面,确保流域开发的环境生态平衡。     

Putting the cart before the horse: Water governance and IWRM

Water governance has emerged as perhaps the most important topic of the international water community in the 21^st century, and achieving “good” water governance is now a focus of both policy discourse and innumerable development projects. Somewhat surprisingly in light of this attention, there is widespread confusion about the meaning of the term “water governance”. This paper reviews the history of the term's use and misuse to reveal how the concept is frequently inflated to include issues that go well beyond governance. Further, it highlights how calls to improve water governance often espouse predetermined goals that should instead be the very function of water governance to define. To help overcome this confusion, the paper suggests a more refined definition of water governance and related qualities of good water governance that are consistent with broader notions of the concepts. In light of the substantial resources allocated in its name, this paper's findings show there is significant potential to strengthen efforts at improving water governance.     

GIS与层次分析法相结合的生态环境综合评价研究——以渝西地区为例

将GIS与层次分析法相结合应用于渝西地区生态环境质量综合评价。首先,根据渝西地区生态环境的基本特点确定生态环境质量综合评价的指标体系和基本评价单元,通过层次分析法,确定各评价指标的权重,计算出每个评价单元的生态环境质量综合指数和分指数;然后运用GIS技术,根据每个评价单元的质量指数和分指数,自动生成渝西地区生态环境综合评价等级图;在此基础上,对渝西地区生态环境整体及各不同侧面质量状况的空间分异规律进行分析和研究。结果显示,渝西区生态环境质量基本上由南向北逐渐降低,与自然环境状况的空间格局大体吻合,但局部地区有差异。表明自然条件对渝西地区生态环境质量的空间分异起决定性作用,但社会经济和环境污染等因素同样对生态环境具有重要影响,在某些情况下,甚至可以成为决定因素,并在一定程度上改变生态环境的空间格局。