Let's meet at the (climate) club
The contributions of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) to sustainable bioenergy governance
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13065587 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stavros Afioni (0000-0002-0434-5108, Cardiff University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 129 |
| Pages | 104384-104384 |
| Publication date | 2025-10-18 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Energy Research & Social Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2214-6296 • E-ISSN: 2214-6326 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104384 |
| OpenAlex | W4415321153 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 35 |
As global energy and climate governance is becoming increasingly polycentric, climate clubs have been put forward as a promising tool that could help move climate action forward. Recent decades have witnessed a proliferation of climate clubs and club-like arrangements. While theoretical work has focused on the different forms of climate clubs and the various roles they (could) play in this context, the empirical record of climate clubs has received less scholarly attention. This article seeks to contribute to filling this gap by evaluating the role in global climate and bioenergy governance of the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), a government-driven international initiative established in 2006 to promote the sustainable and efficient use of bioenergy and biomass. This study presents a framework of four criteria (operational structure, governance functions, club benefits and legitimacy) and applies it to interview data to assess GBEP's contributions to bioenergy governance. First, while GBEP is supported by a structured secretariat and has attracted a diverse membership, funding constraints have recently led to real financial pressures. Second, while GBEP fulfils a range of important governance functions, such as capacity-building or sustainability indicator-setting, its low agenda-setting powers and policy development capabilities have not allowed it to play a larger role in global bioenergy governance. Third, GBEP offers a range of important but limited benefits to its members, mainly due to its modest financial means. Finally, GBEP occupies a unique niche in the global bioenergy governance space, but fluctuating support from its members has limited its political weight. • Climate clubs have emerged as an option that could help move climate action forward. • In contrast to theoretical work, their empirical record has received less attention. • Structure, governance functions, club benefits & legitimacy serve as evaluation criteria. • The Global Bioenergy Partnership is an important actor in bioenergy governance. • Fluctuating support from members and funding constraints limit its political weight
Bioenergy · Climate change · Climate change mitigation · Climate governance · Corporate governance · General partnership · Global governance · Sustainability · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Energy and Environment Impacts · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations
A club’s contribution to global climate governance
A sectoral perspective on global climate governance
Protecting Future Generations Through Minilateralism
The International Renewable Energy Agency
Minilateralism or the UNFCCC? The Political Feasibility of Climate Clubs
Legitimacy in an Era of Fragmentation
Global governance and legitimacy
Small states and the ‘throughput’ legitimacy of international organizations
Trade and Bioenergy
Legitimacy under institutional complexity
Multilevel policy from the municipal perspective
When Normative and Market Power Interact
Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law
Assessing the Legitimacy of the EU's Treaty Revision Methods
The Club Approach
Phase-out clubs
Thematic Analysis
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |