Does orchestration in the Global Climate Action Agenda effectively prioritize and mobilize transnational climate adaptation action?

Chan, Sander / Wanja Amling
External Publications (2019)

in: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1-18 (online first)

DOI: 10.1007/s10784-019-09444-9
Information

Climate change adaptation is increasingly seen as a question that involves globally connected vulnerabilities and impacts which necessitate transboundary action by non-state and subnational (transnational) actors. Traditional actors such as governments and international organizations leave deficits in norm development, enforcement, capacity building, and financing. Orchestration has been suggested under the functionalist assumption that transnational actors can make up for these deficits, through optimizing complementarity between the realms of international and transnational governance and through eliciting more action toward the achievement of globally agreed climate goals. In the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), orchestration has taken the form of an evolving Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA). Few studies have examined the role of orchestration in bolstering transnational adaptation. This article therefore asks: Has the GCAA effectively mobilized and prioritized transnational adaptation action? Further, has it effectively addressed functional, participatory, and geographic deficits? Analyzing a unique dataset of a hundred cooperative climate actions, this study finds that current patterns are incongruent with some functionalist expectations. GCAA orchestration has featured a political prioritization of both adaptation and mitigation and a focus on building a positive narrative of climate action. This combination of priorities has led to neglect of underperforming actions—many of them adaptation actions in developing countries. Subsequent iterations of the GCAA failed to recognize these actions and did not identify support needed for them. This has strengthened the bias toward mitigation aspects of climate change and exacerbated imbalances in the geography of transnational action under the GCAA.

About the author

Chan, Sander

Enviroment Policy

Chan

Further experts

Aleksandrova, Mariya

Climate risk governance 

Bauer, Steffen

Political scientist 

Baumann, Max-Otto

Political Science 

Brandi, Clara

Economy and Political Science 

Breuer, Anita

Political Scientist 

Dick, Eva

Sociologist and Spatial Planner 

Dippel, Beatrice

Comparatist 

El-Haddad, Amirah

Economy 

Fuhrmann, Hanna

Economy 

Haldenwang, Christian von

Political Scientist 

Houdret, Annabelle

Political Scientist 

Hägele, Ramona

Political Scientist 

Iacobuta, Gabriela

Environmental Researcher 

Kuhn, Sascha

Social Psychology 

Kunz, Yvonne

Geography 

Lehmann, Ina

Political Scientist 

Leininger, Julia

Political Scientist 

Malerba, Daniele

Economy 

Mathis, Okka Lou

Political Scientist 

Mehl, Regine

Political Science 

Müngersdorff, Maximilian

Social Scientist 

Never, Babette

Political Scientist 

Nowack, Daniel

Political Scientist 

Pegels, Anna

Economist 

Rodríguez de Francisco, Jean Carlo

Ecological Economist 

Roll, Michael

Sociologist 

Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy

Agricultural Economist 

Stoffel, Tim

Political Scientist