首页> 外文期刊>International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics >Does orchestration in the Global Climate Action Agenda effectively prioritize and mobilize transnational climate adaptation action?
【24h】

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

机译:《全球气候行动议程》中的编排是否有效地优先和动员了跨国气候适应行动?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:越来越多的人将气候变化适应问题视为一个涉及全球范围的脆弱性和影响的问题,这需要非国家和次国家(跨国)行为者采取跨界行动。政府和国际组织等传统参与者在规范制定,执行,能力建设和融资方面存在缺陷。在功能主义的假设下,有人建议进行编排,即跨国行为者可以通过优化国际和跨国治理领域之间的互补性,并采取更多行动来实现全球公认的气候目标,来弥补这些不足。在《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)的背景下,编排采用了不断发展的《全球气候行动议程》(GCAA)的形式。很少有研究检查编排在加强跨国适应方面的作用。因此,本文提出以下问题:GCAA是否有效地动员了跨国适应行动并确定了优先顺序?此外,它是否有效地解决了职能,参与和地理上的缺陷?通过分析一百种合作气候行动的独特数据集,本研究发现当前模式与某些功能主义者的期望不一致。 GCAA编排的特点是在政治上优先考虑适应和减缓气候变化,并着重建立积极的气候行动叙述。优先事项的这种结合导致忽视了表现不佳的行动,其中许多行动是在发展中国家采取的适应行动。 GCAA的后续迭代无法识别这些操作,也没有确定对它们的支持。这加剧了在缓解气候变化方面的偏见,并加剧了GCAA规定的跨国行动的地理失衡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号