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

Chan, Sander / Wanja Amling
Externe Publikationen (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.

Über den Autor

Chan, Sander

Umweltpolitik

Chan

Weitere Expert*innen zu diesem Thema

Aleksandrova, Mariya

Climate risk governance 

Bauer, Steffen

Politikwissenschaftler 

Brandi, Clara

Ökonomie und Politikwissenschaft 

Breuer, Anita

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Dippel, Beatrice

Komparatistik 

El-Haddad, Amirah

Ökonomie 

Haldenwang, Christian von

Politikwissenschaftler 

Herrfahrdt-Pähle, Elke

Volkswirtin 

Houdret, Annabelle

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Hägele, Ramona

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Iacobuta, Gabriela

Umweltwissenschaftlerin 

Kunz, Yvonne

Geographie 

Lehmann, Ina

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Leininger, Julia

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Malerba, Daniele

Ökonomie 

Mathis, Okka Lou

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Müngersdorff, Maximilian

Sozialwissenschaftler 

Rodríguez de Francisco, Jean Carlo

Umweltwissenschaftler 

Roll, Michael

Soziologe 

Schoderer, Mirja

Umweltwissenschaftlerin 

Schraven, Benjamin

Politikwissenschaftler 

Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy

Agrarökonom 

Stoffel, Tim

Politikwissenschaftler 

Trautner, Bernhard

Politikwissenschaft 

Wehrmann, Dorothea

Soziologie