Cities for Climate Protection program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:31, 16 September 2012

Revision as of 15:30, 27 November 2013

Line 32:

== The CCP program as a Transnational Governance Network ==

Transnational governance is distinct in that it involves both state and non-state actors, contributing differing sources and capacities of authority.<ref name="Andonova et al, 2009">{{cite journal|last=Andonova|first=L. B|coauthors=Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H|title=Transnational Climate Governance.|journal=Global Environmental Politics|year=2009|volume=9|issue=2|pages=52–73}}</ref> As a network, they involve ‘regular interaction across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non-state agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or intergovernmental organisation’.<ref name="Risse-Kappen, 1995">{{cite book|last=Risse-Kappen|first=T|title=Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions|year=1995|publisher=Cambridge University Press|___location=Cambridge}}</ref> The CCP program operates within nation-states via national and regional campaigns, as well as cross boundaries between international nations, between state and non-state actors, fitting Risse-Kappen’s transnational governance network definition. Transnational governance networks assemble information, knowledge and values objectifying ‘the integration of new conceptions of… environmental phenomena into everyday worldwide views and practices’ of public and private actors.<ref name="Lipschutz, R">{{cite book |last=Lipschutz |first=R |title=Saving the Seas: Values, Scientists, and International Governance |year=1997a1997 |publisher=Maryland Sea Grant College|___location=College Park, MD|author=Lipschutz, R.|authorlink=Networks of Knowledge and Practice: Global Civil Society and Protection of the Global Environment |editor=Brooks, L. A. & VanDeever, S. D}}</ref> The CCP program is identified as a public transnational governance network, as opposed to a hybrid or private transnational network, as such networks are established by and for public actors.<ref name="Andonova et al, 2009" /> Public transnational governance networks are founded via ductile co-operation such as agreements of understanding, exemplified by the resolution or formal declaration imposed by a pending member of the CCP program, rather than formal sanctions of intergovernmental agreements from the state.<ref name="Andonova et al, 2009" />

<ref name="Slaughter, 2004">{{cite book|last=Slaughter|first=A. M.|title=A New World Order|year=2004|publisher=Princeton University Press|___location=Princeton, NJ}}</ref> and <ref name="Raustiala, K. 2002">{{cite journal|last=Raustiala|first=K|title=The Architecture of International Co-operation: Trans-governmental Networks and the Future of International Law|journal=Virginia Journal of International Law|year=2002|volume=43|issue=1|pages=1–92}}</ref> are celebrated for their work in transnational governance networks in global governance for its importance of development in globalisation. The CCP program is the most influential example of this celebratory work along the climate scale, as a public transnational governance network, involving public authorities in governance across both local and global scales. The CCP program as a transnational governance network exemplifies how boundaries of formal intergovernmental diplomacy are over-reached, engaging in public authoritative steering in seeking to address the mitigation of GHG emissions, at a local scale.<ref name="Andonova et al, 2009" /> As a transnational governance network, the CCP program network is a crucial means in improving municipal performance in respect to climate change. The networks aid on facilitating the process by offering ways for members to contact each other, in circumstances that may involve a joint bid for climate change project funding, or for submitting bids individually.<ref name="Kern & Bulkeley, 2009">{{cite journal|last=Kern|first=Kristine|coauthors=Bulkeley, H|title=Cities, Europeanisation and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks|journal=Journal of Common Market Studies|year=2009|volume=47|issue=2|pages=309–332}}</ref>

=== CCP Cities in Maintaining their Transnational Governance Network ===

Key to securing transnational governance network participation are CCP cities whom see the program as a means of promoting their interests, values and norms in regards to climate change at a local scale. In maintaining a valuable, worthwhile, and effective GHG emissions reductions governance network, member CCP cities must establish open connections within the network, creating solid network interactions.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" /> Member cities illustrating open connections toward the CCP program, through the active involvement of continual monitoring and reporting of energy use, and participation in CCP program workshops, often gain additional financial resources from the network.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" /> Alone, the production and exchange of information from CCP cities is insufficient in maintaining a transnational network. Forged on the basis financial and political resources are offered to member cities by the CCP program, based on the formation of close network links, openly connected member cities receive legitimacy of their ideas, creation of knowledge for local climate protection and shared norms, rather than the reliance upon the dissemination of technical information actively sought upon by less connected CCP cities. In maintaining a significant connection as a CCP city within a transnational governance network, members must not exclusively rely upon the dissemination of information, but rather build upon knowledge, norms and resources linked within the process of building and maintaining networks.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" />

== Benefits and Successes of the CCP program as a Transnational Governance Network ==

As a transnational governance network, joining as a CCP member city is a benefit to a city in itself. Advantages for CCP cities account for exchanges of experience, access to funding and political kudos, and the development of direct links between CCP member cities from the local to international level.<ref name="Kern & Bulkeley, 2009">{{cite journal|last=Kern|first=Kristine|coauthors=Bulkeley, H|title=Cities, Europeanisation and Multi-Level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks|journal=Journal of Common Market Studies|year=2009|volume=47|issue=2|pages=309–332}}</ref> CCP cities have benefited personally, able to voice concerns, interact and learn within a supportive environment, and gain international experience and access to financial resources whilst promoting interests within local government.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" /> ). In some cases, Leicester and Newcastle, UK, the CCP program has given enhanced political kudos, creating opportunities for matters of energy and climate mitigation strategies to rise on their local agendas.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" /> ). Initiatives undertaken by CCP cities have gained national and international recognition, proving to be a valued resource provided by the transnational governance network.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" /> Newcastle, New South Wales and Denver, US, were cities that already had climate change inventories on their local agendas before joining the CCP program network. Only by participating in the transnational governance network were their climate change ethoses and inventories reinforced through their membership. By offering itself up, the CCP program, as a transnational network has been successful in building local capacity, due to the political and financial resources obtained through close membership within the network. Individuals benefiting from this position have been able to allow climate change mitigation strategies to join in line with issues of local significance allowing for the need to responsibly tackle global issues at a local scale.<ref name="Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. 2004" />

Crucially, while it is seen single local government action on reducing GHG emissions may be relatively ineffective, working together under a transnational governance network frame collectively, such as the CCP cities, can make an important contribution towards the reduction and mitigation of global climate change.<ref name="Fay, 2007">{{cite journal|last=Fay|first=Chris|title=Think Locally, Act Globally: Lessons to Learn from the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign|journal=A Journal of Politics|year=2007|volume=7|pages=1–12}}</ref> An example of a CCP success story is Denver, US. After joining the CCP program, Denver’s municipal government invested $1.6million into installing light-emitting diodes (LEDs) into all red traffic lights and ‘don’t walk’ signs across the city. The LEDs, having longer life spans and lower energy requirements, led to a $5million savings in energy use and maintenance for the city.<ref name="Fay, 2007">{{cite journal|last=Fay|first=Chris|title=Think Globally, Act Locally: Lessons to Learn from the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign|journal=A Journal of Politics|year=2007|volume=7|pages=1–12}}</ref>

Line 49:

Lack of administrative capacity leaves many cities without the facilities to develop local policies and programmes for climate change mitigation, leaving it increasingly difficult and time-consuming to address climate change at the municipal level.<ref name="Betsill, 2001" /> Many US cities in particular are unable or unwilling to provide adequate resources to address this issue due to more pressing agenda issues, and many personnel lack the technical capacity to monitor and analyse GHG emissions due to highly complex processes and inadequate access to necessary data.<ref name="Kates et al, 1998">{{cite journal|last=Kates|first=R. W|coauthors=Mayfield, M. W., Torrie, R. D. & Witcher, B|title=Methods for estimating greenhouse gases from local places|journal=Local Environment|year=1998|volume=3|issue=3|pages=279–297}}</ref>

Budgetary constraints emerge through an unwillingness to invest financial resources into climate change mitigation strategies. Many city budgets constrain the flexibility of municipal government officials to invest in GHG reduction projects,<ref name="Nijkamp & Perrels, 1994">{{cite book |lastlast1=Nijkamp |firstfirst1=P |title=Sustainable Cities in Europe: a comparative analysis of urban energy-environmental policies |year=1994 |publisher=Earthscan |___location=London |authorauthor2=Perrels, A}}</ref> viewing the issue as a luxury expenditure.<ref name="Press, 1998">{{cite journal|last=Press|first=D|title=Local environmental policy capacity: a framework for research|journal=Natural Resources Journal|year=1998|volume=38|pages=29–52}}</ref> It is not un-common in response however for CCP municipal governments to convince officials to invest in some GHG reduction technologies, with the argument money saved through mitigation strategies can be used for re-investment in further mitigation strategies.<ref name="Betsill, 2001" />

== References ==