| dc.description.abstract | Over the years, it has been observed that successful policy innovations by non-state climate actions may cause them to scale up or be replicated in other contexts, also described as ‘catalytic impact’. Recognising this potential, the UNFCCC launched the ‘Momentum for Change’ (MfC) initiative in 2011, which annually awards non-state climate actions with high catalytic potential to become ‘Lighthouse Activities’. Through this awarding mechanism, UNFCCC attempts to further strengthen the contributions of non-state climate actions to international climate change governance. This approach with international awards has been adopted beyond UNFCCC as well. However, there have been few studies to investigate the actual value of these awarding mechanisms for strengthening catalytic impact of non-state climate action, and additional understanding of catalytic impact is still necessary. Focusing on MfC, this thesis therefore aims to determine what drivers and barriers may be present for catalytic impact, and to what extent they are addressed by awarding mechanisms. To pursue this objective, the thesis is theoretically based in polycentric governance and transnational climate change governance and aims to characterise MfC’s ‘enabling power’ for supporting non-state climate actions. Following a literature review and an online survey conducted among Lighthouse Activities, a wide array of drivers and barriers for catalytic impact has appeared. At the same time however, the survey indicated that only a smaller subset of drivers and barriers are perceived to be addressed when winning the MfC award. Specifically, MfC appears mainly to strengthen reputation as a driver for catalytic impact, as Lighthouse Activities receive explicit recognition by the UNFCCC for their initiative’s work and catalytic potential. The latter observation is further supported by what survey respondents have indicated about the value of MfC, as well by similar findings from follow-up interviews: recognition by the UNFCCC after winning the MfC award is highly appreciated by Lighthouse Activities as it validates their initiatives’ work and strengthens their position, regardless of whether they are able to address drivers and barriers for catalytic impact. The latter does often seem to be true for Lighthouse Activities, but may be strongly reliant on individual initiatives’ circumstances and ability to capitalize on its strengthened reputation. In conclusion, it appears that the enabling power of the MfC award is strongly embedded in the UNFCCC’s international authority, but the extent to which an award can help address drivers and barriers for catalytic impact appears conditional to an initiative’s individual circumstances. | |
