Knowledge for change or more of the same? The role of policy knowledge systems in the Nationally Determined Contributions of Ghana, Kenya and South Africa

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Michael Boulle , Britta Rennkamp, Emily Tyler, Mark New
{"title":"Knowledge for change or more of the same? The role of policy knowledge systems in the Nationally Determined Contributions of Ghana, Kenya and South Africa","authors":"Michael Boulle ,&nbsp;Britta Rennkamp,&nbsp;Emily Tyler,&nbsp;Mark New","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The sum of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) continue to be inadequate for achieving the global climate goals articulated in the Paris Agreement, despite their five-yearly updates. The role of knowledge in formulating and implementing NDCs is critical for identifying how individual Parties can improve their NDCs. This paper applies a policy knowledge systems perspective, to analyse the evolution of the knowledge systems responsible for formulating the 2015 intended NDCs (iNDCs) and the 2021 NDC Updates, in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. The analysis showed in varying degrees that: i) improving design and access to NDC processes increased credibility, legitimacy and relevance of their outcomes; ii) knowledge bases for the Updates improved upon the knowledge bases of the iNDCs, thereby delivering more robust and ambitious targets, with local universities playing key roles; iii) local representation, transparency, inclusivity and communication were critical factors to strengthen the knowledge bases. Where a knowledge base was strong and well communicated, ideological differences could be bridged and consensus built, while less developed parts of a knowledge base were more contested; iv) inclusivity and transparency in the processes were critical to balance access and representation of actors; v) the NDC processes connected national and international climate processes, exerting pressure on one another. Finally, the evolution of the NDCs has demonstrated their impact as agenda-setting policy instruments but they have demonstrated less evidence of impact in terms of implementation. In sum, designing and conducting robust processes, developing strong knowledge systems, and inclusive actor participation, drove change towards stronger NDC formulation processes and outcomes. At the same time change was resisted, evident in the legacies and lock-ins of these processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"164 ","pages":"Article 104016"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125000322","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sum of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) continue to be inadequate for achieving the global climate goals articulated in the Paris Agreement, despite their five-yearly updates. The role of knowledge in formulating and implementing NDCs is critical for identifying how individual Parties can improve their NDCs. This paper applies a policy knowledge systems perspective, to analyse the evolution of the knowledge systems responsible for formulating the 2015 intended NDCs (iNDCs) and the 2021 NDC Updates, in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. The analysis showed in varying degrees that: i) improving design and access to NDC processes increased credibility, legitimacy and relevance of their outcomes; ii) knowledge bases for the Updates improved upon the knowledge bases of the iNDCs, thereby delivering more robust and ambitious targets, with local universities playing key roles; iii) local representation, transparency, inclusivity and communication were critical factors to strengthen the knowledge bases. Where a knowledge base was strong and well communicated, ideological differences could be bridged and consensus built, while less developed parts of a knowledge base were more contested; iv) inclusivity and transparency in the processes were critical to balance access and representation of actors; v) the NDC processes connected national and international climate processes, exerting pressure on one another. Finally, the evolution of the NDCs has demonstrated their impact as agenda-setting policy instruments but they have demonstrated less evidence of impact in terms of implementation. In sum, designing and conducting robust processes, developing strong knowledge systems, and inclusive actor participation, drove change towards stronger NDC formulation processes and outcomes. At the same time change was resisted, evident in the legacies and lock-ins of these processes.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信