This article identifies diverse rationales to call for anticipatory governance of solar geoengineering, in light of a climate crisis. In focusing on governance rationales, we step back from proliferating debates in the literature on 'how, when, whom, and where' to govern, to address the important prior question of why govern solar geoengineering in the first place: to restrict or enable its further consideration? We link these opposing rationales to contrasting underlying visions of a future impacted by climate change. These visions see the future as either more or less threatening, depending upon whether it includes the possible future use of solar geoengineering. Our analysis links these contrasting visions and governance rationales to existing governance proposals in the literature. In doing so, we illustrate why some proposals differ so significantly, while also showing that similar-sounding proposals may emanate from quite distinct rationales and thus advance different ends, depending upon how they are designed in practice.

Global climate policy till date has focused on building consensus around a differentiated roadmap for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Equally important yet receiving less attention is the need to support adaptation of the most vulnerable communities to the increasingly severe impacts of climatic changes. The Paris Agreement, negotiated at the 21st COP in December 2015, ‘stitches up’ national contributions on adaptation and mitigation into a global agreement. This article first reviews the adaptation components of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by developed, emerging and least developed nations. Second, we examine how adaptation and the related themes of loss and damage have been dealt with in the Paris Agreement in terms of: global goal, legal form, review mechanisms and financing arrangements. Finally, we look at the possibility of evolving new arrangements and opportunities for strengthening global response to adaptation by drawing on references to human rights and climate justice in the Paris Agreement. We contend that the global response cannot be relegated to action by individual nations—partly and loosely supported by global financial and technological flows. The Paris Agreement has made significant steps in raising the importance of adaptation vis-à-vis mitigation in climate action but a lot of work remains to be done. In a sense, the top-down elements of adaptation action reflect long held negotiating positions and the skepticism of developed nations with respect to adaptation. For the post-Paris climate regime to be legitimate and earn the trust of developing nations, it must focus equally on adaptation and mitigation and address the special needs of vulnerable communities across the world.

Projections indicate that large increases in emissions may occur in developing countries during the next twenty to fifty years if current development patterns persist. This paper describes the development of co-operation regarding air pollution issues in three sub-regions of three continents. Experiences gained through activities within a programme on Regional Air Pollution in Developing Countries are used to illustrate progress. The sub-regional process in South Asia developed through a series of meetings that led to the Malé Declaration. In southern Africa a policy dialogue led to the Harare Resolution targeted towards progress in the SADC region. A policy dialogue in Buenos Aires concentrated on issues related to regional harmonisation of legal frameworks in the Mercosur region. In all regions the link between scientific information required to support decision making has been emphasised. The sub-regional policy processes are analysed in relation to availability of required scientific information and compared to the process that led to protocol development in Europe.

This case study has been undertaken within the Mekong Regional Environmental Governance project, which is an integral part of the Resource Policy Support Project (REPSI). The study will analyse issues related to regional governance of natural resources, and in particular the role of key institutions and organizations. The specific empirical focus of the case study is to understand the hydropower site selection process in the Se San and Sre Pok basins (see map), in the upland areas on the border of Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. It aims to understand the role of various actors in the site selection process and to evaluate to what extent the existing institutional processes have been (and are) adequate for promoting sustainable environmental governance. The outcome is an analysis of the process of hydropower site selection, which brings to light the forces exerted by the different actors and institutional structures that have had an impact on the end-result. The Mekong River Commission (MRC) Agreement, and its signatory institutions, is the key institution under scrutiny, but the study also evaluates the role of other key actors and institutions vis-à-vis the MRC.