3.1.3.1 The multiple sales of tipping point governance

When considering what institutions of governance would be the most appropriate to address the risks posed by ESTPs, three non-mutually exclusive logics can be employed. First, ESTPs are arguably of global concern that requires global-scale governance, especially with a view to the possibility of tipping point cascades. While some tipping systems have a more regional character or focal point than others, they can have global-scale – or at least globally distributed – drivers. Additionally, most tipping processes have impacts and impact chains that would reach far beyond the regional scope of the tipping element. Given that Earth system tipping processes are a result of climate change, the international climate change regime centred on the UNFCCC might be the most suitable place to address tipping points, supported by the global-scale scientific knowledge production in the IPCC. Other global institutions could include the CBD and IPBES or UNEP (particularly for biosphere tipping systems).

Second, governance might correspond to the geographical scale of the tipping system. All tipping systems have a large geographical extent or distribution, crossing multiple national boundaries and affecting people in specific but often disconnected and widely dispersed regions. For instance, the world’s warm water coral reefs can be found in multiple countries around the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, while the Amazon rainforest stretches across eight countries. A number of tipping systems are close to the Arctic. Given this sub-continental/regional character (a scale below the global but above the national) governance institutions that operate at the scale of the tipping element might be most suitable to address the challenges specific to each tipping process. In some cases, like the Arctic, regional bodies already exist that could consider including tipping points in their mandate (Aakre et al., 2018) and changing their current character from coordination platforms to governance institutions. For example, a recent Amazon summit has given momentum to the idea of pan-Amazon governance, e.g. to tackle deforestation, potentially via the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). In other regions, existing governance fora might be weak and not willing to expand their scope and mandate. In cases where institutions at the scale of the tipping system do not exist (e.g. coral reefs, mountain glaciers, or the AMOC), the creation of new ones with a tipping point-specific mandate could be considered to match this scale and the corresponding problem structure (Galaz et al., 2008; Lebel et al., 2013). 

Third, governance could follow the Earth system component relevant for a tipping system – for instance oceans, corals, forests, etc. However, for some of these issue areas, global and regional institutions are weak (e.g. tropical forests) or non-existent (e.g. corals, permafrost). Regarding the cryosphere, existing bodies are primarily of a scientific character (e.g. the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme), pointing back to a responsibility for the climate regime. Further, the impacts of Earth system tipping processes will always be felt at the local (municipal), national, and regional scales, where most adaptation and impact governance will take place.

Given the relevance of multiple scales and their interactions, a polycentric approach (Ostrom, 2010; Jordan et al., 2018) that purposefully crosses these and governance sites would be most suitable for addressing ESTPs. “Polycentric systems are characterised by multiple governing authorities at differing scales rather than a monocentric unit” (Ostrom, 2010, 552), with each unit having significant independence and rule-making authority. Polycentricity builds on the concept of multilevel governance, which “takes place through processes and institutions operating at, and between, varieties of geographical and organisational scales involving a range of actors with different forms of authority” (Duit and Galaz, 2008, p. 318). 

A polycentric governance network for ESTPs would distribute responsibility across scales, where some issues are addressed with global frameworks (e.g. emission reductions, financial mechanisms, international migration), while others are tackled at the regional scale (e.g. addressing secondary drivers of tipping processes), and some centre on local communities (e.g. adaptation). Regional actors might play important roles for framing, norm setting, mobilising action and building adaptive capacity related to a specific tipping element. They are often best positioned to support knowledge production regarding the tipping system in question, including the detection of early warning signals, by drawing on local and Indigenous knowledge. For example, in 2023, the Inter-American Network of Academies of Sciences launched a new initiative on the Amazon region that could provide the knowledge base for governance efforts at the scale of the Amazon rainforest (e.g. in regional bodies like ACTO or the Organization of Amazon States), and in 2022 Indigenous organisations under COICA from across Amazonian countries collaborated with scientists on a report highlighting that localised dieback is already occurring in some areas (Quintanilla et al., 2022). 

Regional governance bodies also provide strong platforms for mutual learning and sharing governance experiences, amplifying the effects of successful interventions. Importantly, they could be responsible for addressing regional drivers of tipping processes – e.g. deforestation in the case of forest biomes. (For a more detailed discussion of multi-scale prevention approaches, see Chapter 3.2.) Bodies at this scale tend to face challenges in attracting signatories, establishing binding agreements, and enforcing and monitoring agreements. At the same time, the interests of the participating countries are more likely to be aligned, the scope for cooperation is smaller and the need for action is likely to be more immediate and salient. National and local actors also have the authority and expertise to deal with the impacts of a tipping process. Importantly, “global networks need to build a capacity to coordinate actors at multiple levels and from different networks as they attempt to respond to potential ‘tipping points’ of concern” (Galaz et al., 2016, p. 198). A polycentric approach would require strategic efforts to align and coordinate across the network of governance institutions, managing institutional interplay (Elsässer et al., 2022), and maximising synergistic effects. At the same time, these linkages need to avoid rigidity and introducing their own vulnerabilities to cascading failure. Mutual learning and sharing of experiences among actors at a specific scale and across scales is an important component of effective polycentric governance.