Cities for Climate Protection program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:29, 8 April 2015

Revision as of 17:59, 7 July 2015

Line 30:

== 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 |coauthorsauthor2=Betsill, M. M. & |author3=Bulkeley, H|title=Transnational Climate Governance.|journal=Global Environmental Politics|year=2009|volume=9|issue=2|pages=52–73|doi=10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52}}</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=1997 |publisher=Maryland Sea Grant College|___location=College Park, MD |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|author2=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|doi=10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00806.x}}</ref>

Line 45:

Three main institutional barriers exist in transforming CCP program political will into policy action; bureaucratic structure, administrative capacity and budgetary constraints. Bureaucratic structure negatively affects the workings of the CCP program, as there is often no institutional home for climate change policy making.<ref name="Betsill, 2001" /> Many municipal governments have specialised departments with specific mandates with little interaction between departments, posing problems for CCP municipal governments as to control GHG emissions requires collaborative efforts from departmental areas of waste-management, health, air quality, transport and land-use planning amongst others.<ref name="Betsill, 2001" /> Thus the CCP program requires municipal governments to institutionalise efforts to control GHG emissions, housing all issues under one roof of say an environmental department.

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 |coauthorsauthor2=Mayfield, M. W., |author3=Torrie, R. D. & |author4=Witcher, B|title=Methods for estimating greenhouse gases from local places|journal=Local Environment|year=1998|volume=3|issue=3|pages=279–297|doi=10.1080/13549839808725566}}</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 |last1=Nijkamp |first1=P |title=Sustainable Cities in Europe: a comparative analysis of urban energy-environmental policies |year=1994 |publisher=Earthscan |___location=London |author2=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" />