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:在全球气候行动议程中的策划有效优先考虑和动员跨国气候适应行动吗?

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:气候变化适应越来越被视为一个涉及全球相关的脆弱性和影响的问题,这些脆弱性和影响因非国家(跨国)行动者需要跨界行动。各国政府和国际组织等传统行为者留下常态发展,执法,能力建设和融资的赤字。通过优化国际和跨国治理领域之间的互补性以及通过引发全球商定的气候目标的更多行动来弥补这些赤字的功能主义假设,提出了讲作的作者。在“联合国气候变化框架公约”(UNFCCC)的背景下,策划已经采取了不断发展的全球气候行动议程(GCAA)的形式。很少有研究已经审查了策划在润劣跨国适应中的作用。因此,本文要求:GCAA有效动员和优先曲调适应行动吗?此外,它有效地解决了功能,参与性和地理缺陷吗?本研究发现一百合作的气候行动的独特数据集发现,目前的模式不一致,具有一些功能主义的期望。 GCAA Orchestration凭借适应和缓解的政治优先级,并专注于建立一个积极的气候行动叙事。这种优先事项的组合导致忽视表现不佳的行为 - 其中许多适应发展中国家的行动。后续迭代GCAA未能识别这些行动,并未确定其所需的支持。这加强了GCAA下跨国作用地理造成气候变化的缓解方面的偏差,并加剧了跨国作用地理的不平衡。

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