Emergence, effectiveness and legitimacy of transnational adaptation governance

Interest in climate adaptation has increased substantially over time – from a minor policy field to be considered on par with climate mitigation. Meanwhile, the world we live in has become increasingly interdependent across borders. Consequently, climate impacts are transmitted from one place to another, meaning that adaptation to climate change risks and impacts will need to be coordinated in a way that connects places and people. Moreover, the impacts of climate change hit the most vulnerable people the hardest. As extreme weather events hit more often and become more severe, accounts of them are strikingly similar in that the poorest and most vulnerable people and communities are the ones most affected by the impacts. Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, including those related to gender, income, age and ethnicity. Consequently, in an interconnected world, a central challenge for adaptation governance is to assign authority for affairs which have cross-border ramifications. This doctoral dissertation explores the emergence or transnational adaptation governance and how it is changing traditional adaptation approaches. In political science, transnational governance, emphasising the role of non-state actors in international relations, seeks to apprehend how transboundary issues can be best captured in policy and decision-making. The norm of adaptation as a global challenge has been recognised in the Paris Agreement and this dissertation analyses the interaction between state and non-state actors across national borders and its effectiveness, legitimacy and distributional consequences. Adaptation, due to its cross-sectoral nature offers an ample empirical field for furthering transnational governance research. This dissertation is the first attempt to operationalise transnational adaptation governance as a distinct phenomenon. It focuses on three specific cases: adaptation finance, transnational adaptation initiatives and as a governance response to transboundary climate risk. By doing so, it covers the breadth of transnational governance related to adaptation. It finds that, in contrast to mitigation, the role of state actors and international organisations as orchestrators continues to be important, particularly with regards to effectiveness. The dissertation also shows how new actors – particularly private sector actors – increasingly govern adaptation transnationally. This has led to a contestation of legitimacy as actors grapple with previously unidentified risks or areas of shared interest. While the broadening of adaptation has increased the effectiveness potential, the legitimacy of transnational adaptation governance is not grounded in fairness and justice, which are key components for successful adaptation outcomes

Contesting legitimacy in global environmental governance - an exploration of transboundary climate risk management in the Brazilian-German coffee supply-chain

Stronger interconnections between people, ecosystems and economies in a globalized world are changing the scope and nature of global environmental governance. One area where this is becoming increasingly evident is climate change, where there is a growing recognition that climate risks can be transboundary in nature, crossing international borders as people, goods, and capital do. This suggests that a multiplicity of actors – state and non-state – have plausible claims to be engaged in or responsible for the governance of transboundary climate risks. However, it is presently unclear on what premises a global governance institution to do so might be constructed and the roles various actors may play therein. This absence of established roles and norms creates a space for political contestation with legitimacy at its center. In this paper, we unpack the contested nature of legitimacy by examining the governance of TCRs in agricultural supply-chains. Empirically, we analyze 41 semi-structured interviews across the Brazilian-German coffee supply-chain in an effort to characterize the primary modes of governance available to manage TCRs and their perceived institutional sources of legitimacy. We identify five distinct governance pathways, each underpinned by a distinct operationalization of legitimacy. These governance pathways are not necessarily mutually exclusive; it is plausible for several to co-exist, though the relative balance between their importance in a given context may vary widely. We argue that these five pathways and the role of legitimacy in navigating their differences are transferrable to other challenges in global environmental governance. Further, we argue that legitimacy is best understood as an object of political contestation, wherein actors deploy various sources of legitimacy differently in an effort to legitimize their preferred approach to TCR management, delegitimize others, and advance their own vision of appropriate global environmental governance

Är en annan värld möjlig? World Social Forum, Den Globala Rättviserörelsen och formulerandet av en ny demokrativision

Ända sedan det kalla krigets slut har diskursen om den liberala demokratin varit hegemonisk. Det, menar vi, har skapat en osund situation där demokratins utformning och innehåll inte längre diskuteras. Därför har vi valt att undersöka den globala rättviserörelsens demokrativision, den enda som idag skulle kunna representera ett legitimt alternativ till den liberala demokratin. Eftersom det är en ostrukturerad grupp av diverse organisationer, rörelser och aktivister är det svårt att nå fram till en samlad vision. Vår analys bygger huvudsakligen på World Social Forums ?Charter of Principles?, en samling grundläggande principer som bildar en gemensam grund för alternativa politiska forum. Vi har använt oss av diskursanalys för att ur textens fragment utläsa en samlad vision. Vi finner en vision i danande som ännu lider av den bristande legitimitet det innebär att vara en oprövad ide i antagonism mot ett globalt faktum

Contesting Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance: An Exploration of Transboundary Climate Risk Management in the Brazilian-German Coffee Supply Chain

Stronger interconnections between people, ecosystems and economies in a globalized world are changing the scope and nature of global environmental governance. One area where this is becoming increasingly evident is climate change, where there is a growing recognition that climate risks can be transboundary in nature, crossing international borders as people, goods, and capital do. This suggests that a multiplicity of actors – state and non-state – have plausible claims to be engaged in or responsible for the governance of transboundary climate risks (TCRs). However, it is presently unclear on what premises a global governance institution to do so might be constructed and the roles various actors may play therein. This absence of established roles and norms creates a space for political contestation with legitimacy at its center. In this paper, we unpack the contested nature of legitimacy by examining the governance of TCRs in agricultural supply-chains. Empirically, we analyze 41 semi-structured interviews across the Brazilian-German coffee supply chain in an effort to characterize the primary modes of governance available to manage TCRs and their perceived institutional sources of legitimacy. We identify five distinct governance pathways, each underpinned by a distinct operationalization of legitimacy. These governance pathways are not necessarily mutually exclusive; it is plausible for several to co-exist, though the relative balance between their importance in a given context may vary widely. We argue that these five pathways and the role of legitimacy in navigating their differences are transferrable to other challenges in global environmental governance. Further, we argue that legitimacy is best understood as an object of political contestation, wherein actors deploy various sources of legitimacy differently in an effort to legitimize their preferred approach to TCR management, delegitimize others, and advance their own vision of just global environmental governance

Country ownership in climate finance coordination: a comparative assessment of Kenya and Zambia

publishedVersio

Are European decision-makers preparing for high-end climate change?

Despite the Paris Agreement target of holding global temperature increases 1.5 to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, high-end climate change (HECC) scenarios going beyond 4 °C are becoming increasingly plausible. HECC may imply increasing climate variability and extremes as well as the triggering of tipping points, posing further difficulties for adaptation. This paper compares the outcomes of four concurrent European case studies (EU, Hungary, Portugal, and Scotland) that explore the individual and institutional conditions, and the information used to underpin adaptation-related decision-making in the context of HECC. The focus is on (i) whether HECC scenarios are used in current adaptation-related decision-making processes; (ii) the role of uncertainty and how climate and non-climate information is used (or not) in these processes; and (iii) the information types (including socio-economic drivers) commonly used and their limitations in relation to HECC scenarios. Decision-makers perceive HECC as having a low probability or distant occurrence and do not routinely account for HECC scenarios within existing climate actions. Decision-makers also perceive non-climate drivers as at least as important, in many cases more important, than climate change alone. Whilst more information about the implications of particular sectoral and cross-sectoral impacts is needed, climate change uncertainty is not a significant barrier to decision-making. Further understanding of individual and institutional challenges brought about by the ‘squeeze’ between adapting to HECC scenarios or to lower levels of temperature change (as those agreed in Paris) is essential to better contextualise the use of climate change information.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Multilateral climate finance coordination: politics and depoliticization in practice

The governance of public climate finance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries is fragmented on both the international and national levels, with a high diversity of actors with overlapping mandates, preferences, and areas of expertise. In the absence of one unifying actor or institution, coordination among actors has emerged as a response to this fragmentation. In this article, we study the coordination efforts of the two most important multilateral climate funds, the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), on the global level as well as within two recipient countries, Kenya and Zambia. The CIF and the GCF are anchored within the World Bank and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, respectively, and represent two diverging perspectives on climate finance. We find that on both levels, coordination was depoliticized by treating it as a technical exercise, rendering invisible the political divergences among actors. The implications of this depoliticization are that both funds coordinate mainly with actors with similar preferences, and consequently, coordination did not achieve its objectives. The article contributes to the literatures on coordination, climate finance, and environmental governance by showing how a response to the fragmentation of climate governance did not overcome political fault lines but rather reinforced them

The politics of climate finance coordination

• Climate finance coordination challenges reflect political differences, including divergent interests among ministries involved in the governance of multilateral climate funds.• Differences in the histories and governance of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) – two key multilateral climate funds – shape debate on their respective advantages and future roles.• The multilateral funds have encouraged cross-governmental coordination at country level. However, there are competing views on which governmental actors at national level are best-suited to take responsibility for coordinating climate finance planning and implementation.• The cross-sectoral orientation of climate finance coordination contrasts with existing development coordination approaches, which emphasize coordination within separate policy sectors

How does policy coherence shape effectiveness and inequality? Implications for sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people

To what extent are land resource managers preparing for high-end climate change in Scotland?

We explore the individual and institutional conditions and the climate information used to underpin decision-making for adaptation to high-end climate change (HECC) scenarios in a land resource management context. HECC refers to extreme projections with global annual temperature increases of over 4 °C. We analyse whether HECC scenarios are used in the adaptation decision-making of stakeholders who will tackle the potential problem. We also explore whether the adaptation actions being considered are pertinent only to future climate change or whether other drivers and information types are used in decision-making (including non-climate drivers). We also address the role of knowledge uncertainty in adaptation decision-making. Decision-makers perceive HECC as having a low probability of occurrence and so they do not directly account for HECC within existing actions to address climate change. Such actions focus on incremental rather than transformative solutions in which non-climate drivers are at least as important, and in many cases more important, than climate change alone. This reflects the need to accommodate multiple concerns and low risk options (i.e. incremental change). Uncertainty in climate change information is not a significant barrier to decision-making and stakeholders indicated little need for more climate information in support of adaptation decision-making. There is, however, an identified need for more information about the implications of particular sectoral and cross-sectoral impacts under HECC scenarios. The outcomes of this study provide evidence to assist in contextualising climate change information by creating usable, cross-sectoral, decision-centred information