Gabriella Blakstad
Development Studies C (Bachelor Thesis) Department of Government
Uppsala University, Spring 2018 Supervisor: Marcus Wangel Words: 12 856
Pages: 34
Cities and regions as actors in a polycentric governance system towards climate change action
Abstract
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and for long nation-states and international agreements have been in focus in the search of solutions. Yet, this approach to climate change action is becoming increasingly contested and the focus has in part been turned to other types of actors, such as actors from other levels of governance. A polycentric governance system is one of the new approaches posed for climate change governance.
Through this governance system such actors are emphasized and the collaboration and cooperation between them, horizontally and vertically, is in focus. In this thesis the aim is to analyze two different alliances, one of city governments and one of regional governments.
These two alliances are then positioned in relation to the polycentric system of governance. A frame analysis is used to investigate the alliances’ respective framings in order to identify how they position themselves within such a system. Reports and official documents by the alliances are used as material for the analysis. The results show that these two actors’ frames are similar in many ways. Their focus lays on the importance of the level of governance that they represent, as well as collaboration and cooperation with various types of actors. Proving their compatibility with the polycentric governance system theory.
Keywords: Climate change governance, polycentrism, subnational actors
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Background and theory ... 4
2.1. Background... 4
2.2. Polycentric governance and climate change action ... 5
2.3. Subnational and local governance for climate change action ... 6
3. Method and material ... 8
3.1. Method and research design ... 8
3.2. Material ... 10
4. Empirical findings ... 11
4.1. C40 ... 11
4.2. nrg4SD ... 18
5. Discussion ... 26
5.1. C40 ... 26
5.2. nrg4SD ... 27
5.3. Comparison... 28
6. Conclusion ... 30
7. References ... 32
1. Introduction
When seeing and hearing more and more about climate change and its issues that never seem so seize but rather grow, it is easy to feel hopeless. The most important actor is by many perceived to be the nation-state and the global alliances, such as the one formed in the Paris Agreement, and sometimes it feels as we are just waiting for and hoping that they will tell the rest of us what to do. But as proven many times over, collective action towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change is not easy. The United Nations have long been in the forefront of coordinating global climate change action, especially through the Conference of the Parties (COP). These conferences have resulted in several international treaties being adopted by a wide range of countries. However, the world’s confidence in COP’s capacity decreases as they fail to make important actors commit and to achieve measures that are long needed and crucial.
So when a large and important actor such as the U.S. threatens to leave the Paris agreement, one can question if we are waiting in vain. Elinor Ostrom is one of the many promoters of the expression “think globally, act locally”, and perhaps that is what a growing number of actors see as the new potential solution. Especially when nation-states fail to agree and act within the time-frame that is becoming increasingly narrow.
The state-centric approach to governance is now competing with another approach, polycentric governance. Where more actors than the nation-states are in focus and where a bottom-up approach is seen as part of the solution. It is as Ostrom herself says however, not a panacea (Ostrom, 2010, p.555). Yet judging from the literature, it is a feasible option, even if that conclusion is also contested. The UN has also recognized the importance of including more levels of governance and other types of actors then the nation-states which is shown e.g. by the creation of the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action “agreed by governments to signal that successful climate action requires strong support from a wide range of actors, including regions, cities, business, investors and all parts of civil society” (UNFCCa, n.d.).
Governments on levels below the nation-state, so called subnational governments, are also showing increasing potential and determination to contribute to climate change action, not only on UN climate change conferences but also together in other forms alliances as well as individually (Andonova et al., 2009, p.52; Bulkeley, 2010, p.19). And although one city or region cannot save the world, large networks of several actors can sometimes represent a larger population than a single nation-state and thus have large implications on the global effort towards a sustainable development. Ostrom already concluded that we cannot wait on decisions
to be made at the global level if we are to prevent the disasters that otherwise are to come (Ostrom, 2012, p.365). It seems like the world is starting to agree.
The aim of this essay is to illuminate how some subnational actors position themselves in the complex task that effective climate change action is. I wish to contribute to a deeper understanding of this by focusing on two such actors, the C40 alliance and the nrg4SD alliance.
In order to do this, I will conduct a frame analysis based on published documents by these two actors. The research question post in this essay is: How do two key alliances on the subnational level frame their own role within a polycentric system of climate change governance?
2. Background and theory 2.1. Background
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. There is a consensus among most scientist that the rapid climate change that have occurred during the last 50 years is caused by human activities (NASA, n.d). Some of the consequences enhanced by NASA is e.g. rising sea levels, more extreme weathers such as hurricanes, droughts, and more precipitation, rising temperatures and an ice-free Arctic Ocean (Jackson, n.d.). These consequences will have radical impacts on all inhabitants of the earth, including humans and their societies. Its affects will vary but still cut cross all regions in various ways. The United Nations has put itself in the forefront of climate change action and works to support a sustainable development through mitigation and adaptation activities (UNEPa, n.d., UNEPb, n.d.). These actions are provided by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEPc, n.d.). One of the most relevant and wide known bodies of UNEP is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCCa, n.d.). It is UNFCCC that facilitates the COP-meetings which have been in the center of attention in the climate change action agenda and it was considered a milestone when the Paris Agreement was signed during the 21st conference in 2015. It was then “the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal” (EU, 2016). The agreement was prized but also criticized (Victor, 2016, Keohane & Oppenheimer, 2016). E.g. Robert O. Keohane & Michael Oppenheimer defines the Paris agreement as “less an accomplishment than part of an ongoing process”, leaving its level of success to be determined in the future (2016, p.150).
David Victor takes a more positive stance and is “optimistic that Paris has turned the corner”
(2016, p.140). One of the main reasons for the agreement to be seen as a success was the fact that it was ratified by 176 countries (UNFCCCb, n.d.). Adding to its success was also
the fact that the three largest CO2 emitting countries, China, the U.S., and India, were part of the countries ratifying the agreement (UN, n.d.). Though in June 2017, the U.S. decided to withdraw from the agreement, and the question of the further success of the agreement was raised (Vaughan, 2018). Yet even before that there was skepticism towards the agreement and e.g. Daniel H. Cole went so far as to say that “No one believes that the UN’s global climate policy has been successful” (2015, p.115).
2.2. Polycentric governance and climate change action
Earlier climate change actions have until recent time been thought of mainly in a top-down approach with focus on the global arena with nation-states as the main actors. This can be argued to have been the case in earlier COP agreements and is also an approach that has been contested. Elinor Ostrom raises the problematics of this multilateral approach to climate change governance (Ostrom, 2012, p.354f). She argues that because of the failure of the multilateral approach to reach agreement, “we need to make a scholarly investment in a more appropriate theory of global change that offers a better explanation of micro-level incentives and outcomes” (ibid, p.354). She also empathizes how complex the issue of climate change is and that the expectation of one single approach to solve it all is “naïve”, yet she also emphasizes how multilateralism still needs to be part of the approach as
“climate mitigation policies must eventually involve all of the countries of the world” (ibid, p.363). Ostrom raises the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as one of the key issues and claim that commitment to such actions are easier built on lover levels of governance that are “linked together through information networks and monitoring at all levels” than on the nation-state level (ibid, p.366). She describes polycentricism as a term that has developed from a dissatisfaction with the dichotomy of government and market and refer to Vincent Ostrom’s definition of the term as a system where “many elements are capable of making mutual adjustments for ordering their relationships with one another within a general system of rules where each element acts with independence of other elements” (ibid, p.355). She herself defines it as a system were “multiple public and private organizations at multiple scales jointly affect collective benefits and costs” (ibid). She further argues for the relevance of polycentric systems even within the global context as “extensive empirical research found that while large-scale units were an essential part of effective governance of metropolitan areas, small- and medium-scale units were also necessary components” (ibid, p.356f). She also claims that there will not be any change on small scale until there is a common knowledge about the “cost and benefits of actions” (ibid, p.357). Ostrom
empathize 5 things that has to be recognized in relation to polycentric systems in climate change governance “(1) the complexity of causes of climate change; (2) the challenge of acquiring knowledge about causes and effects in a world that is changing rapidly; (3) the wide diversity of policies that can lead to reduced emissions but might also enable opportunistic efforts to obtain a flow of funds by appearing to reduce emissions while not having a real impact, or worse, effectively increasing rather than decreasing emissions; (4) the opportunities that major sources of funding open up for policy experiments if funds are also allocated to monitoring and evaluation of the benefits and costs of the experiment; and (5) that all policies adopted at any scale can generate errors, but without trial and error, learning cannot occur” (ibid, p.365).
Other scholars share a similar view of polycentric systems and their role in climate change governance as Ostrom. Jordan et al., also emphasize that climate governance has to take place on lower levels despite the importance of the international multilateral level (2015, p.979). They also identify a discourse of climate governance where it is seen as becoming increasingly polycentric (ibid). Morrison et al. defines polycentrism as “a model of governance that actively steers local, regional, national, and international actors and instigates learning from experience across multiple actors, levels of decision making, and temporal scales” (2017, p.2). They also identify a number of main arguments in favor of polycentrism such as it being “capable of considering multiple environmental, social, or economic conditions” and that as “the effects of environmental variability and change are location-specific, a polycentric approach permits tailoring of adaptation activities to suit local-regional circumstances and community preferences” (Morrison et al., 2017, p.4f).
Another advantage of polycentrism is claimed to be how it is “creating more opportunities for experiments and learning” (Cole, 2015, p.115). Some concerns regarding polycentric systems and other types of governance other than the multilateral are also raised, such as
“if different levels of governance opt for conflicting policies, the result can be leakages, meaningless certification, policy incoherence, unnecessary duplication of efforts, counterproductive actions, and/or complete gridlock” (Morrison et al., 2017, p.6). The effectiveness and potential of the system to achieve climate change action is also argued to be uncertain and yet to be seen, and Ostrom’s more optimistic view is thus contested (Jordan et al., 2015, p.980).
2.3. Subnational and local governance for climate change action
Climate change governance is described as a complex system that used to be perceived as mainly multilateral, but that now is becoming increasingly multifaced with governance on several levels and by various types of actors (Andonova et al., 2009, p.52). Since the 1990’s there has been a boost of transnational alliances between municipal actors for climate change and an expansion of the number of cities they contain (Bulkeley, 2010, p.19).
Subnational governments have increased their actions and they are not seldomly even ahead of national governments (Andonova et al., 2009, p.52). According to Harriet Bulkeley, this is a “result of dissatisfaction with progress at the international level and the fragmentation of political authority” (2010, p.21). Thus, focus has changed from only being on nation- states to also include lower levels of governance. There has been a growing acknowledgement of the potential of these types of actors from scholars (e.g. Scheurs, 2008, p.345) and also from the UN (Galarraga et al., 2011, p. 165). It is also recognized how much of the impacts of climate change will be felt regionally and locally (ibid, p.1). Local activities are also brought forward as necessary to solve the issues emphasized by Agenda 21, and the role of local actors is thereby further enhanced (Schreus, 2008, p.347). Thus, local actions are viewed as being able to impact further than just the local area in which they are performed (ibid, 2008, p.353). However, there are also research showing “local action plans as crucial to mainstreaming climate policy in municipalities and promote their adoption through several means”, and the more direct impacts on the local area is therefore also acknowledged and emphasized (Hakelberg, 2014, p.110).
Transnational municipal networks are claimed to strengthen the climate change action abilities of local actors as they provide environments where these actors can exchange experience and expertise with one another (Bulkeley, 2011, p.26). It is however also emphasized how the actions of subnational actors will not be enough, and because of their dependence on higher level of governance it is also claimed that “national, federal, or supranational action” is still necessary (Schreus, 2008, p.353).
Multilevel cooperation is thus enhanced, and such cooperation can be defined as two types, vertical and horizontal cooperation (Galarraga et al., 2011, p.166). Vertical cooperation emphasizes the interdependence between the different levels of governance, e.g. as national governments need lower level governments to implement their policies and lower level governments are dependent on legislative decisions taken on the national level (ibid).
Horizontal cooperation entails cooperation and sharing of experience and information
“between all levels of government” and can be conducted e.g. through “transnational networks and coalitions” (ibid).
Galarraga et al gives some examples of the roles different levels of governments could have in policies for climate change action (2011, p.167). Local/city actors are given the role to e.g. “identify local priorities”, “raise awareness” and “implement local decisions as foreseen under national or regional law” (ibid). Sub-national regions have the role to work for
“implementation of national laws, standards”, to “prioritize and set out time frames for regional action”, and to “fund core analytical inputs to facilitate regional and local decision- making” to name a few (ibid). Lastly national governments are given the role as the actor who e.g. creates “national laws, policies and standards in key climate-related sectors”, who do “risk characterization at national scale”, and that “provides regions, local governments with tools and support to make good decisions” (ibid). These examples of the different levels roles play are then said to “illustrate the need for close cooperation” (ibid).
3. Method and material
3.1. Method and research design
In this thesis, a qualitative descriptive content analysis in the form of a frame analysis will be conducted. Through the frame analysis, the frames respective alliance use for their position in a polycentric governance system for climate change action will be investigated.
Also potential similarities and differences between the two alliances’ frames will be illuminated, though this is not the purpose of the study.
A frame analysis is similar to other types of text analysis but has its main focus on the actors, i.e. the producers and the consumers of the frames (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.218).
Its aim is to identify what frames that are used by specific actors and what that say about the ideas or values of the actors (ibid). The value of a frame analysis is motivated by the claim that the way actors frame the issues and solutions surrounding a phenomenon, effect how these actors act towards the phenomena that is being framed (ibid). The way to conduct a frame analysis is by systematically asking questions to relevant texts, and that these questions are constructed in congruence with the concept of framing as well as the theories used within the study (ibid, p.219). The questions could e.g. be about what actors or what solutions that are included in the framing (ibid).
I believe that this type of method is suitable to answer my research question and to achieve a wider understanding of lower levels of governance in climate change action. The polycentric theory empathizes the role of different levels of governance as well as cooperation between these governments. From the questions I asked to the texts included in the analysis, I hope to present results that can indicate how these actors are acting and will act within the polycentric system of climate change action they are part of. By comparing the two I also hope to describe potential differences in the framing of the levels that respective alliance represents, and thus also indication of differences in how they act and will act.
The questions that will be asked to the text are the following:
How is the alliance portraying its own role and actors of the governance level it represents roles in climate change action?
By this I hope to capture the potential and struggles that the alliance perceives it and its members to have, which can be telling for how ambitious the alliance can be expected to be in its actions.
How is the alliance portraying its own role and actors of the governance level it represents roles in climate change action compared to actors on other levels of governance in climate change action?
This question is used with a similar aim as the previous one, but also to make the framing more measurable. This as it gives a point of reference when positioning how the alliance see itself in relation to the perception it has of other actors.
How does the alliance portray the importance of cooperation, both within the alliance and with actors on other levels of governance and in other sectors?
As the importance of cooperation is empathized in much of the literature on polycentric governance systems, this question can tell about the values of the alliance and how well it will do in such a system.
Thus, I believe that these questions will provide the analysis with high validity (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p.58). Though the reliability is more difficult to achieve as there are many ways to interpret a text (Teorell & Svensson, 2007, p.59). It is also an inductive analysis, and any preexisting frames is thus not used when analyzing the text (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p.1279f). To strengthen the reliability, the results are divided into an “empirical findings”-
section where mainly citations will we used when referring to the text and objective observations will be made. Thereafter the discussion will be used to analyze the material provided in “empirical findings”, and thus make it clear from where I draw my thoughts and conclusions from and increase the reliability.
3.2. Material
In this study, mainly annual reports by the alliances were used. Some shorter reports and official documents were also used, such as summaries of different sorts in the cases where I perceived the alliance’s report lacked substance enough to answer the questions. All material is from 2015 and after and I thus consider them relevant for the analysis of their current framings.
C40 is an alliance and a global network for larger cities. A report from 2016 aimed to support actors within cities to “engage with city governments and accelerate climate action”
will be analyzed (C40, 2016, p.4). The alliance contains some of the largest cities in the world and thus also cities that represent a large amount of the human impact on climate change.
Nrg4SD is an alliance and a global network of regions and states. It has “over 50 members from 30 countries on 4 continents” (nrg4SD, n.d.). Its purpose is to represent “regional governments in the international agendas on climate change, biodiversity and sustainable development” (nrg4SD, 2016, p.2). This alliance lacked reports with comprehensive content, similar to the one by C40, with enough substance for a qualitative analysis.
Therefore two reports from one of its main initiatives that is aimed towards climate change adaptation will be analyzed, as well as two shorter documents describing the initiative and a shorter document that describes the alliance and its work on a more general basis.
I choose these two alliances as they are two of the largest networks for governance below the nation-state level, with members both in the global north and south, and who’s citizens are a large percentage of the globe’s. Though, they are only two of many alliances and neither alliance include all subnational actors of the level of governance they represent.
Thus, a generalization of what framings subnational governments use cannot be made. Yet, as they are two of the biggest and most wide known alliances with a wide variety and large quantity of actors, I consider their potential contribution to climate change action to be of
great relevance and value and thus make them of interest to study. Further, as the analysis is focused on the alliances and not the actors themselves, it could be argued that the frames of the individual actors within both alliances might be different. It is quite feasible that the frames of the individual actors within each alliance differ to a certain extent. However, I perceive it as fair to assume that the frames of the alliances are built on a combination of these individual frames rather than being entirely separated from them. What is expressed in the material analyzed can thus be assumed to also speak for the common ground that the actors within the alliances share.
In this way, this study could bring insight to how powerful actors on subnational levels of governance frame their own position in a polycentric system and contribute to a wider understanding of their values and perceptions. This is done by defining how these alliances perceive their own position as well as other actors’, both on the same and other levels of governance, and how they value cooperation between these actors and themselves.
By this I believe these frames to be of importance to study as they are telling for these alliances’ actions and potential within a polycentric system for climate change action.
In the following section, the analysis of the two alliances will be conducted. It will be divided by the three questions that are used to answer how these actors frame themselves.
For each alliance there will be a short summary.
4. Empirical findings 4.1. C40
How is C40 portraying its own and its members’ role in climate change action?
The Report starts off with the claim that “cities took their place as leaders in responding to the threat of climate change” during the COP21 in Paris 2015 (C40, 2016, p.4). The report also contains recommendations of measures for climate change action for cities:
• ” Establishing a new paradigm of government collaboration
• Enabling cities to lead from the front
• Resetting the climate narrative
• Unlocking the power of citizens
• Building collaboration between the private sector and cities
• Improving the flow of finance to cities”
(ibid).
These measures call for a new governmental setting in climate change actions where more resources are located to the city-level and where cities are in the forefront, rather than nation-states which is the status quo.
City governments are claimed to be “essential to effectively deal with the threat of climate change” (C40, 2016, p.4). It is pointed out that they stand for one third of the greenhouse gas emissions that “exceeds the globally safe carbon budged” and this fact is used to emphasize the importance of cities’ actions and thus the contribution that the C40 alliance can provide (C40, 2016, p.6). It is also empathized how this fact is acknowledged by city governments and have caused them to “lead the way” and cities are said to now be
“delivering unprecedent and globally impactful action on climate change” (ibid).
Findings of potential to expand the C40’s actions are provided and the impact it would have is measured (C40, 2016, p.6). Some challenges for city action are also brought up but it is then stated that “city governments are so confident that their climate actions are both effective and worthwhile that they plan to expand four out of five of them” (ibid).
C40 is part of the “Compact of Mayors” initiative created by Ban Ki-moon when he was the UN Secretary General (C40, 2016, p.15). C40 is one of the leaders of the initiatives and its aim is to make cities “increase their visibility as leaders responding to climate change”
and “demonstrate their commitment to an ambitious global climate solution, particularly as nations convened around a new climate agreement in Paris in December 2015”. This initiative is then claimed to provide “hard evidence that cities are true climate leaders, and that local action can have a significant global impact” (Ibid).
Some negative aspects of the capabilities of cities is also provided in the report as it includes findings that shows that “shortage of skills, knowledge and resources required to plan for and implement climate action within the city government, especially in the Global South”
(C40, 2016, p.18). It is then emphasized how City government’s “capacity to deal with risk and uncertainty” are of great importance as the lack of it makes “effective climate action harder” (ibid). Findings that show how transparency in decision making and planning is important for the efficiency of city actions are also presented (ibid).
C40 is claimed to “facilitate dialogue amongst city officials” and this is argued to build
“trusted relationships, which in turn ensures that ideas, solutions, lessons, questions, and even friendly competition can flow freely and responsively to cities’ needs” (C40, 2016, p.20).
Part of C40’s approach is the ‘Benefit of Climate Action’ work program that is a framework for “measuring benefits from climate action and populating a widely accessible database of evidence of these benefits” (C40, 2016, p.27). C40 would then provide its members with the tools to compare results while also sharing information on what policy actions that have had positive results (ibid).
Not only the environmental benefits are brought up in the report but also the economical. It is claimed that “at a global scale, compact, connected, and coordinated cities can generate stronger growth and increase the health and wellbeing of urban citizens” (C40, 2016, p.27).
Green economy is also mentioned, and cities are claimed to need to “inspire and enable the private sector” in order to better connect the city government and the private sector as to improve the climate action also on the private level. (C40, 2016, p.36). Cities thus has to act as facilitators of the right environments and the right structures to enable an effective development of a green economy. The City Solutions Platform is an initiative for
“engagement between innovative solutions-focused businesses and megacities with complex challenges” (ibid, p.39). Cities are portrayed to play a crucial part in the procurement process and making it more flexible and robust (ibid). Issues for cities in relation to financing climate actions is also raised (C40, 2016, p.41). C40’s Cities Finance Facility project is enhanced as a solution as it aims to “provide the skills, technical assistance and connections to funding opportunities needed to unlock up to US$1billion worth of sustainable infrastructure in cities across low and middle-income countries by 2020” (ibid, p.43). This initiative is then claimed to “not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions – sustainable infrastructure investment will also improve urban life, public health and economic growth, targeted at cities in the Global South” (ibid). Another initiative, The Financing Sustainable Cities Initiative, is also mentioned as a means to facilitate an environment of knowledge sharing, innovation and general collaboration “between cities, technology providers and capital providers” (ibid).
C40 supports cities with “developing standards, processes, and tools: providing access to training and technical support; and facilitating knowledge transfer and peer-to-peer exchange” (C40, 2016, p.27). This is then claimed to make cities adopt a more effective approach towards climate change action (ibid).
Resetting the climate narrative is one of C40’s goals and the alliance is portrayed as a knowledge hub for information about climate change and effective approaches to climate change action (C40, 2016, p.28). An initiative where climate messages are put “on digital billboards in cities around the world” is also mentioned when speaking of C40 and its members’ interest in effective “climate communication” (ibid, p.34). C40 also means to support cities branding of themselves in ways that has a positive impact on their capabilities to work towards a sustainable development (ibid, p.39).
How is C40 portraying its role compared to actors on other levels of governance in climate change action?
As mentioned previously, cities stand for a third of the world’s emissions (C40, 2016, p.6).
It is then stated in the report that the cities of C40 cities have the potential to save emissions
“equivalent to the annual emissions of the United Kingdom” by 2020 (ibid). It is however also emphasized how “the willingness of nation-states to coordinate with cities is critical”
and thus that even though cities’ climate change action can make a vital difference, their capabilities to do so relies on the capability to affect the policies on the nation-state level (C40, 2016, p.12). It is also claimed that “Many aspects of city government policy, programs and service delivery need to be planned beyond city borders” (ibid). Alliances as C40 is then portrayed as part of the solution as “city governments have demonstrated they can influence national policy by joining forces” and as further expansion of such cooperation is portrayed as possible, it is claimed that “organizations like C40 and NCE could help facilitate this engagement” (ibid, p.16). C40 is described as having a “unique network of global city leaders” which is claimed to also be crucial in the issue of financing climate change action (C40, 2016, p.43).
In the part of the report focusing on “engaging urban stakeholders” it is emphasized how cities face a number of issues including the “lack of control over the message that is delivered – particularly where media, national government or other powerful messengers
are competing for stakeholder attention” (C40, 2016, p.30). Adding on to the portrayal of C40 and cities as having the capabilities to contribute with substantial climate change action despite being restrained by actors on other levels, especially the nation-state level.
The report also focusses on “collaborating with the private sector” and the private sector is portrayed as a vital actor in climate change action (C40, 2016, p.36). City governments’
relationship with the private sector are divided it into two main interactions (ibid). First “as a customer, procuring services and goods from private sector providers – either to service city government operations or to provide services to the public on behalf of city government”. Second “through policy, legislation and programs that create a stable investment environment and often new markets for private sector actors” (ibid). Thus, cities are both controlling of and dependent on the private sector. City governments are said to be
“aware of their limited resources and expertise in working with the private sector” and that
“city practitioners are looking for platforms and forums that allow them to identify relevant cutting-edge technologies, business models and techniques that the private sector can supply to address the challenges cities face” (C40, 2016, p.38). City practitioners are also claimed to be “looking for support to build understanding and skills to establishing investments, actions or proposals that are commercially viable and attractive “(ibid). For this, cities want to take a leading role in supporting the enhancement of the possibilities for cities and the private sector when they cooperate, and the City solutions Platform initiative previously mentioned is part of this approach (ibid, p.39).
How is C40 portraying the importance of cooperation, both within the alliance and with actors on other levels?
While emphasizing the city-level’s importance and also acknowledging the limits of its capabilities to run climate change action, cooperation is in focus throughout the report. As mentioned before, the report contains recommendations of measures for climate action for actors within cities of which one is “establishing a new paradigm of government collaboration” and another is “building collaboration between the private sector and cities”
(C40, 2016, p.4). It is stated that “75% of the challenges cities face cannot be managed unilaterally” (ibid). It is also claimed that “cities rely on a collaborative approach to governance for the majority of the transformative actions they take, showing that cities are often already very effective at partnering and collaborating” and that “collaboration with partners in other sectors is therefore vital” (ibid). In the report it is claimed that there are
potential for even greater such collaboration among cities, as well as between cities and nations and between cities and the private sector (ibid). It is also stated that the report is aimed to increase collaboration by providing insight and facilitate an environment that favors an “international collective response” through “a shared understanding” (C40, 2016, p.7).
“Vertical and horizontal coordination” is one of the themes of the report and “concerns the relationship between a city authority and other government actors who impact city government operation, duties and freedoms”. In this theme the relationship between international, national, and sub-national governance is the main focus (C40, 2016, p.9). It is emphasized as vital as city governments are part of all previously mentioned governance systems (ibid). The challenges of vertical and horizontal coordination are also brought up.
Especially that nation-states are less likely to rely on cities but rather on experts and thus the influence of cities on national policies is limited (ibid, p.12). However, it is claimed that
“collaboration greatly increase the chances of smooth and successful local implementation, as allows city representatives to influence policy and understand the context for their decision-making” (ibid). It also has positive effects on other levels of governance as
“collaboration also provides benefits for national and regional governments as there is increased likelihood their policies will be supported by complementary measures at the local level” (ibid). Another issue that effects the ability for vertical and horizontal coordination is “a lack of shared goal” (C40, 2016, p.13). C40 staff on the regional level claim that “clarity of purpose is key for coordination” as “efforts to work together just makes things too confusing otherwise” is cited (ibid). It is identified that there is a “need for improved governance structures to facilitate metro- and regional (sub-national) level coordination – that is, improved horizontal coordination” (ibid). This is related to the fact that many cities governments are only part of the whole metropolitan area (ibid). A part of the theme’s section focuses on “city and partner success stories” with stories where cities have successful cooperation with different municipalities, the state, and other cities (C40, 2016, p.14f). Further the section focuses on C40’s approach and the initiative compact of Mayors that has already been mentioned (ibid, p.15). The initiative does however not only enhance the role of cities in climate change action but it also “allows cities to demonstrate their collective impact, and thereby provides them with a platform to engage effectively with national government and international negotiations” (ibid). Another initiative mentioned is the Coalition for Urban transition that is a partnership between C40 and the
New Climate Economy (NCE) with the goal of “enhancing the collaboration and coordination between national and city government” (ibid). This initiative is meant to direct the relationship between governments of different levels in climate change action (ibid).
Another section of the report focuses on “establishing a new paradigm for government collaboration” (C40, 2016, p.15). Here the knowledge and experience of city practitioners is used to establish goals that has to be reached in order to overcome the challenges towards integrating the various levels of governance (ibid). Defining “effective vertical and horizontal integration” is one of them and is suggested to be achieved by two measures.
First through investigating cases “where effective governance solutions have been implemented that allow vertical and horizontal coordination to occur” (ibid, p.16). Second through establishing “how international, national and other levels of government want to engage with cities in setting the vision and goals for urban-relevant strategy” (ibid). Another goal is to “show the benefits of more effective integration” and it is claimed that “City governments want to establish an evidence base around the mutual benefits of improved collaboration” (ibid). The last goal is to “catalyst better vertical and horizontal integration”
through e.g. supporting important actors with the tools that would enable them to achieve better collaboration between different actors and different levels of governance (ibid).
In the section of the report with the theme “better internal city operation and capacity” the collaboration between cities within the C40 alliance is enhanced (C40, 2016, p.20). It is claimed that the “C40 networks create conversations that enable cities to tailor their own actions to their unique situations, and band together to use their collective power to access partnership resources, including technical and financial support” (ibid).
Another focus of the report is on “understanding and engaging urban stakeholders” (C40, 2016, p.30). Here the importance of the city staff’s ability to communicate with various stakeholders, which has proved to be a difficult task, is enhanced (ibid). A set of mechanism towards effective communication used by C40 cities is then presented. “Unlocking the power of citizens” is another incentive within this focus area, and city staff is said to have shown interest in discussions regarding collaborations “at an international, national or city scale that can facilitate alignment between the environmental agenda and other existing values of the community” (ibid). Thus, here collaboration and partnership are seen as the solution to issues related to climate change action. It is also claimed that “cities are keen to
work together and with key stakeholders to identify how best to use new communications technology to aid the understanding and uptake of climate action” (ibid, p.34).
The fifth theme of the report is “Collaborating with the private sector” and partnering with the private sector is portrayed as crucial for “effective climate change action” and when collaboration is hindered the consequences have a negative impact on the capabilities of climate change action (C40, 2016, p.36). Collaboration with the private sector is claimed to support local specific solutions so that they are most effective in the city where they are meant to be implemented (ibid). Several initiatives to facilitate such collaboration are mentioned and it is stated that “such efforts should be greatly enhanced to cover all sectors of climate change” (ibid, p.38). To support collaboration between cities and the private sector a number of priorities for city practitioners are presented. One is improving the
“understanding within city government of the needs and capacity of the private sector”
(ibid). Another is developing “transparent, productive working relationships with the private sector” and here the City Solutions Platform initiative is brought up (ibid). The platform “provides a forum for engagement between innovative solutions-focused businesses and megacities with complex challenges” (ibid, p.39).
Collaboration is portrayed as the common dominator for all of C40’s goals and actions. In the conclusion of the report it is claimed that “whether between levels of government;
departments within city administrations; with the private sector; finance institutions or between mayors and urban citizens, barriers will only be overcome through mutual understanding and shared ambitions” (C40, 2016, p.46).
Summary
In short one could say the main ways in which C40 frame its own and its members’ positions in climate change action governance, is as important actors whose actions have and will have large implication on the global progress towards a sustainable development. The value of collaboration is enhanced. Both within the alliance, but also between the alliance and other actors on different levels of governance and non-state actors e.g. in the private sector.
It is also emphasized how the alliance and is actors, despite their large impact, are heavily dependent on the actions on other levels of governance, especially the nation-state level.
4.2. nrg4SD
How is nrg4SD portraying its own and its members role in climate change action?
Nrg4SD is striving to raise awareness on the national level “of the responsibility and the possibility offered by the work of an intermediate government to carry out a more sustainable development model” (nrg4SD, 2018, p.4). The network from nrg4SD and the initiative RegionsAdapt is also portrayed as a platform from which regional actors can share knowledge, progress, and solutions and make regional actions visible on the international level (ibid). The RegionsAdapt initiative was created to make subnational actors more visible and acknowledged in “global climate policies” (ibid). Such actors are said to be
“crucial in reducing the vulnerability of territories, and of the societies that live in them”
(ibid). It is brought up how the subnational governments that are part of RegionsAdapt
“represent a population of almost 300 million people on all the continents of our planet”
(ibid). The RegionsAdapt initiative is meant to not only provide knowledge on potential solutions to adaptation issues but also about what happens if actions to solve these issues are not made. The costs of this scenario are claimed to be “far higher than that of adapting”
(ibid).
The initiative was created with the incentive to balance the distribution of climate action through mitigation and adaptation (ibid, p. 6). This is to be done through both supporting regional actions towards climate change action, but also by shedding light on the
“importance of these actors within the global adaptation agenda” (ibid). It is also claimed that “the contributions of regional governments to adapting society to climate change can occur either directly or indirectly” (ibid). Some examples are given of direct contribution and they are claimed to be “manifold, ranging from addressing water scarcity to adopting ecosystem-based solutions or dealing with extreme weather events” (ibid). When it comes to indirect contributions it is brought up how “regional governments also contribute to adapting communities to climate change by backing the actions undertaken at other levels of jurisdiction” (ibid).
The issue that comes with regions not having adaptation plans are brought up (nrg4SD, 2018, p.9). The absence of such plans is explained to be caused by various reasons. Either the adaptation plans are integrated in a more holistic approach and thus there is no specific plan for only adaptation measures. Or there might be “a lack of human and financial resources, as well as capacities”. Another potential reason that is brought up is “inadequate institutional structures or the absence of political will and leadership” that prohibits
effective adaptation plans getting developed (ibid). RegionsAdapt and similar initiatives is then portrayed as possible solutions to these issues.
Adaptation to water supply has its own section in the report and regional governments are claimed to be vital actors for actions being taken “on the ground” (nrg4SD, 2018, p.22).
Another section focuses on how “climate change impacts create socio-economic risks (nrg4SD, 2018, p.23). It is claimed that the findings they have collected by searching for the “main socio-economic challenges” of the regions partaking in the initiative, suggest that these challenges “require multiple responses from regional governments to be effectively addressed” (ibid).
In the report it is emphasized that RegionsAdapt “is the first global initiative for regional governments to take concrete actions, cooperate and report efforts on climate adaptation”
(nrg4SD, 2018, p.25). The initiative is claimed to include “governments situated between the local and the national level”, no matter size nor location (ibid). By joining the initiative, the regions commit to first adopting “a strategic approach to adaptation and prioritize adaptation actions within two years of joining the initiative”, and second to “take concrete action on adaptation in at least one of the seven priority areas identified by the regions” and finally third to “report data on the progress of adaptation actions on an annual basis” (ibid).
It is stated that the members of the initiative had doubled in 2017 since its launch two years before (ibid). RegionsAdapt provides its member with “technical support to adopt their adaptation strategies, such as best practice guidelines, exchanges of experience and support to accelerate action in the area” (ibid).
The report is claimed to show regional governments’ knowledge of the risk and possibilities related to climate change as well as their commitment to substantial climate change action, both by their own or within “global initiatives like RegionsAdapt” or similar (nrg4Sd, 2018, p.28). The initiatives’ own accomplishments are emphasized as well as those of regional governments outside the initiative (ibid). RegionsAdapt and similar international initiatives are portrayed as capable of helping regional governments with the issues that prohibits effective climate change action towards mitigation, such as conflicting “policies on other levels of governance”, financing and so on (ibid). The importance of its position as a platform for information-sharing is enhanced as “various regions face the same risks
resulting from climate change” (ibid). Thus, sharing information about “challenges and solutions” enables regions to “help each other to better adapt to such risks” (ibid). The reports by the RegionsAdapt initiative contains several cases of climate adaptation and it is believed that by the members of the initiative sharing this information, regional governments will “learn from their experiences, exchange ideas on further improvements and create common knowledge of how to adopt to climate change” (nrg4SD, 2017, p.19).
It is further stated that “RegionsAdapt not only supports this knowledge exchange and facili- tates the development of effective adaptation strategies, but also aims to work on the concrete implementation of dedicated projects within the years to come” (ibid).
Nrg4SD also works with several other focus areas than RegionsAdapt and e.g. “promotes and supports the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the level of regional governments”
(nrg4SD, 2016, p.3).
How is nrg4SD portraying its role compared to actors on other levels of governance in climate change action?
As already mentioned nrg4SD emphasize the specific role that regional governments have in relation to governance on other levels and they are described as “a crucial nexus between national and local governments” and that thus “can be quite helpful when translating national strategies and policies to the local level” (nrg4SD, 2017, p.5). It is further enhanced how the regional level has an especially important role for adaptation that will benefit “also the climate change regime as a whole, taking into account the crucial importance this specific level of jurisdiction has for adaptation” (nrg4SD, 2018, p.6). This as adaptation is claimed to be a “location-specific task” and that “there are no one-size-fits-all solutions”
and regional governance thus have a useful and “unique position between the national and local levels” (ibid). Regional governments are thus portrayed as a sort of bridge between higher and lower levels of governance as they are seen as to be “well-positioned to integrate local and national levels, coordinate action among municipalities, and offer innovative approaches to national adaptation strategies” (nrg4SD, 2017, p.19).
It is continuously repeated throughout the two reports that this unique role that regional governments are playing is undervalued (ibid, p.3). This is said to be the case “both in theory and in practice” (nrg4SD, 2018, p.6). It is also claimed that this undervaluation has negative consequences for the capabilities for adaptation action of regional governments as their
“access to funding sources in this area is frequently inadequate, which tends to entangle
them in a vicious cycle (ibid). Nrg4SD however suggest that the exchange of information that Regions Adapt strive to facilitate would have positive consequences and “save resources and enhance solutions in multiple locations” (ibid). It is also stated that “if regional governments were more included in nationwide climate planning, the implementation of national Adaptation Plans would certainly benefit from stronger vertical integration” (ibid, p.6). Nrg4SD emphasize that even though “climate change is a global issue” the consequences “are felt mostly on a local and regional scale” (ibid, p. 5). The role of regional governments is also enhanced in relation to other levels of governance as it is claimed that “regional governments’ strategic role is especially meaningful in contexts in which they counterbalance setbacks arising from decisions at the national level” (ibid, p.6).
Regional governments are claimed to support climate change action towards adaptation on several levels. It is claimed that “they can support municipalities, facilitate the implementation of global decisions at the local level through vertical integration” (ibid).
This is also portrayed as possibly contributing to a boost of action on the national level as it is said to “offer inspiring and innovative solutions to national governments” (ibid). It is claimed that “supporting regional government’s efforts leads to the likelihood of favoring adaption at other levels of jurisdiction (e.g. local or national) and in other sectors (e.g.
private sector and academia)” (ibid). However, that “policies by other levels of governance could conflict with adaptation efforts of some regional efforts” are also brought up, thus showing how the regional governance rely on other levels of governance and their actions as well (nrg4SD, 2018, p.28).
How is nrg4SD portraying the importance of cooperation, both within the alliance and with actors on other levels?
As previously mentioned, nrg4SD means to provide a connecting platform through the Regions Adapt initiative in order to connect the actors involved with knowledge and experience. That the role of regional governments is “largely undervalued” is claimed to generate “multiple implications that ultimately undermine adaptation goals in general”
(nrg4SD, 2018, p.6). It is then stated that “challenges faced at the regional level could be better addressed if information were more effectively exchanged between regions dealing with similar issues “(p.6). This since even though there is a large variety of climate change impacts, “various regions face the same risks” and they are “not facing isolated climate challenges” (nrg4SD, 2017, p. 19). It is further claimed that “the exchange of different adaptation approaches may offer a great opportunity for reducing vulnerability within
regions around the globe” (ibid). The findings of climate change action towards adaptation among the members that the initiative’s report present is said to not only show what the actors contribute with to their own region or country. It is also claimed to show the potential that lays for such cooperation between the various regional governments (ibid). The RegionsAdapt initiative is claimed to not only aim to enhance regional governments as actors for climate change adaptation, but also to enhance collaboration between such governments on a global scale (nrg4SD, 2017, p.3). The initiative is thus a way to not only empower regional governments, but also to support collaboration between them (ibid). The initiative and its reports are claimed to provide an arena where such actors can be part of a community and by sharing their efforts and struggles they can collaborate to find effective solutions to their shared issues (ibid).
When speaking of the risk that the “increasing demand for natural resources” bring, some solutions are brought forward. Besides “resource efficiency and waste prevention”, it is claimed that collaboration between “different government levels and society player may mitigate escalating tensions in some regions” (ibid, p.24). The Working Groups facilitated by RegionsAdapt is one of the ways in which the initiative fosters cooperation between its members (ibid). These groups are focused on different areas of the initiative’s goals and
“their purpose is to exchange experiences and learning processes related to cases of success and failure, to commonly develop and adopt good practice standards, and to implement joint pilot projects after identifying international cooperation matchmaking opportunities” (ibid).
As previously mentioned, one of the ways in which the RegionsAdapt initiative works is through support of other levels of governance (ibid, p.6). Collaboration is thus supported not only horizontally between the members, but also vertically between the members and actors on other levels of governance.
Different reasons to why regions do not have an adaption plan according the findings off the report have also already been mentioned. Though “a lack of cooperation between government and civil society” was also a factor that was stated to may cause a lack of such plans (nrg4SD, 2017, p.7). It is also stated that the results of the RegionsAdapt’s report shows that despite that the regional actors “are taking actions to adopt to climate change, these governments could still greatly benefit from joint work, exchange and collaboration”
(nrg4SD, 2017b, p.4).
Nrg4SD gives ten recommendations for further climate change action towards adaptation and three of them focus on collaboration (nrg4SD, 2018, p.28). One is to “foster citizen and community engagement” in the regions in order to include and support the citizens in actions that support sustainable adaptation. Another of the recommendations focus instead on regional industries and to “build lasting relationships” with them in order to include their interest in climate adaptation action. Lastly there is a recommendation to “mobilize finance for climate change adaptation from public and private sources” (ibid).
Approaches to climate change adaptation are as mentioned presented in RegionsAdapt’s reports. These approaches are to some extent portrayed as using collaboration with other actors to work effectively. In the section regarding droughts “integration of the local population into the regions” adaptation efforts are mentioned and governments that promote efficient use of water is brought up as an example on how to collaborate and engage with the citizens for a common agenda (nrg4Sd, 2018, p.11). When it comes to the issue of
“change in seasonality of rainfall” a combination of regional and state actions in the Basque Country in Spain are brought forward as they there used a combination of regional action through “water stress estimations” and “plans for special areas for conservation” and state action through “review of taxes and awareness-raising measures” (ibid, p.12). Another approach is also presented which is taken in South Australia. There “governments, research institutions and the primary industries sector are working to change irrigation and farm management practices and crop types, as well as diversify its industry in preparation for reduced water availability” (ibid). Further examples of actors within the RegionsAdapt initiative collaborating with various actors are provided in the report (nrg4SD, 2018, p.10- 22).
It is stated that the adaptation actions that are needed “demands bold actions of international cooperation (nrg4SD, 2017b, p.2). Nrg4SD “facilitates cooperation projects and partnerships between members and with international experts” (nrg4SD, 2016, p.2). In the leaflet for the alliance as a whole, it is claimed that “thanks to our collective work, today the UNFCC recognize the relevance of subnational governments in ensuring the effective implementation of international agreements and decisions” which is related to COP16 and the then “recognition of the need to engage local and subnational governments as key governmental stakeholders” and COP21 “when the Paris Agreement affirmed the importance of cooperation with cities and regional governments in achieving global targets”
(ibid). Similarly, with what nrg4SD strives to do with the RegionsAdapt initiative for adaptation action, it strives to form a connecting platform so that its member governments can collectively find ways to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as regional actors (ibid). Nrg4SD also work with focus on collaboration in other ways, and in the leaflet it is emphasized how nrg4SD participate in the BreathLife Campaign, an initiative that focus on “the global pollution crisis” (ibid). It is held by UN Environment, the World Health Organization and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and nrg4SD is “the first regional government network to collaborating with the campaign” (ibid). Nrg4SD also hold an initiative called Regions for Biodiversity Platform (R4BLP) which offers a “global community of proactive regional governments to support subnational efforts in the conservation and protection of biodiversity, the promotion of healthy ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods for all their citizens” (ibid, p.3). The platform provides its members with a “collaborative environment for exchange, mutual support and technical capacity building” (ibid). Some other projects that nrg4SD hold is the “Visiting Experts Program”
and the “Call4Projects” program (ibid). The Visiting Experts Program focus on “bilateral cooperation, capacity building and knowledge transfer between nrg4SD members and
“promotes North-South and South-South cooperation by providing a stiped to support logistic expenses” (ibid). Call4Projects is a program that “aims at fostering partnerships between nrg4SD members to develop joint projects in the fields of climate change and biodiversity” (ibid).
Summary
In short nrg4SD thus portray itself as a knowledge and connection hub were its members can share positive and negative experiences, ambitions and accomplishments, and facilitate an environment where regional governments can collectively find solutions that works in a wide variety of local specific contexts. Regional governments are portrayed as powerful as they represent a large amount of the globe’s population. The main focus lays on facilitating collaboration between the members of the alliance. Collaboration with other actors on other levels of governance and other spheres are however also brought up and regional governments are portrayed as bridges between higher and lover levels of governance. The regional governments are claimed to be undervalued and their potential is enhanced by nrg4SD. Especially as higher level of governance fail to deliver what is needed, most prominently in climate change adaptation.
5. Discussion 5.1. C40
C40 puts emphasis on the scope and spread of its members as well as the effect they collectively have on the environment. It states that the action by city governments are vital for climate change action and express great belief in the potential of its members, both collectively within the alliance and individually in their own efforts, supported by the alliance and not. The COP meeting in Paris in 2015 is described as a turning point when city governments took the leading position in climate action and actions already taken by city governments are emphasized. Thus, part of the framing by C40 seems to be to emphasize cities position in climate change action and claim city governments to be the most active and impactful actors in the current context. This also goes in line with the Compact of Mayors initiative’s outspoken aim to increase cities’ “visibility as leaders responding to climate change” (C40, 2016, p.15). Thus C40’s framing of itself and cities as actors is compatible with the portrayal of subnational/local actors within the literature on subnational actors in climate change action when it comes to their effect and potential (Andonova et al., 2009; Bulkeley, 2010; Scheurs, 2008). However, C40 also portray cities and the alliance itself as being dependent on other levels of governance contribution and action to achieve the climate action that is needed. It also does not put cities in the position where nation-states used to be perceived to be. I.e. as the only actor that focus should be put on. Climate change action is also framed as to improve several other areas such as
“Public health and economic growth”, especially in “the Global South” (C40, 2016, p.43).
C40 also portray itself to be a facilitator of collaboration and cooperation between city governments and also between city governments and other levels of governance and actors such as the private sector. This can be perceived to be part of C40’s framing of itself as an actor but also as part of how it frames collaboration/cooperation. This as it by enhancing its own position in such contexts as one of the alliance’s positive contributions, also enhance the value of collaboration/cooperation. That cities are both framed as being vital to the multileveled system of climate governance for it to succeed and as being dependent on other levels of governance and actors to peruse its goals further, enhance the value of primarily vertical cooperation. The value of horizontal cooperation is also emphasized by e.g. the claim that “75% of the challenges cities face cannot be managed unilaterally” and much of the alliance focus is as said on facilitating a network for its members (C40, 2016, p.4). This can be connected to the notion of polycentric governance and the perception of climate
change as most effectively being fought by levels of governance that are “linked together through information networks and monitoring at all levels” (Ostrom, 2012, p.366). When enhancing cooperation with the private sector, local specific solutions are also mentioned.
This, in combination with the emphasis of information sharing of the members’ different solutions and approaches, can also be seen as the framing of the value of local specific solutions. It would then be in line with the Polycentric governance theory’s perception of the development of such solutions as being part of the value of including lower levels of governance (Morrison et al., 2017, p.5). However, local specific solution is not discussed further than so by C40, and it could thus be claimed that the focus seems to rather be on finding the more universally best solutions. One could instead argue that the framing of the importance of information sharing rather could be related to the enhancement of the ability to consider “multiple environmental, social, or economic conditions”, as is considered a positive attribute of polycentric governance systems (ibid, pp.4-5).
5.2. nrg4SD
Nrg4SD also portray itself to include a large variety and quantity of actors in the form of regions and states that have large implications on climate change, and thus frame itself as a powerful actor in climate change action. It also frames itself as a connection point for its members as it portrays itself as a platform where they can build relationships and exchange information while nrg4SD provides them with support. There is an emphasis on how subnational actors are perceived as undervalued. Through contesting this and instead enhancing this type of actors’ value on the international level, nrg4SD contributes to a framing of subnational actors as important. As the RegionsAdapt initiative is mainly focused on adaptation measures, the frame concluded from the material in this analysis is also portraying subnational actors as crucial for mainly climate change adaptation.
Although the portrayal in the report also includes the overall potential of subnational “to carry out a more sustainable development model” (nrg4SD, 2018, p.4). When analyzing the material not aimed at the Regions Adapt initiative, Nrg4SD’s position as an actor for mitigation as well as subnational actors’ contributions to such measures are also enhanced.
E.g. building lasting relationships with regional industries is presented as a measure that is especially well adapted to the subnational level (ibid, p.28). Through the RegionsAdapt initiative it is claimed how the distribution of adaptation and mitigation action is unbalanced, with adaptation action being the least focused on. Subnational actors are portrayed as especially vital for local-specific tasks that adaptation measures are claimed to
