ORIGINAL PAPER
Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance
of transnational municipal networks in global climate
governance
Jennifer S. Bansard
1
•
Philipp H. Pattberg
2
•
Oscar Widerberg
2
Accepted: 15 March 2016 / Published online: 1 April 2016
The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Despite the proliferation and promise of subnational climate initiatives, the
institutional architecture of transnational municipal networks (TMNs) is not well under-
stood. With a view to close this research gap, the article empirically assesses the
assumption that TMNs are a viable substitute for ambitious international action under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It addresses the
aggregate phenomenon in terms of geographical distribution, central players, mitigation
ambition and monitoring provisions. Examining thirteen networks, it finds that member-
ship in TMNs is skewed toward Europe and North America while countries from the
Global South are underrepresented; that only a minority of networks commit to quantified
emission reductions and that these are not more ambitious than Parties to the UNFCCC;
and finally that the monitoring provisions are fairly limited. In sum, the article shows that
transnational municipal networks are not (yet) the representative, ambitious and trans-
parent player they are thought to be.
Keywords Climate change Cities and regions Urban politics Transnational networks
& Philipp H. Pattberg
philipp.pattberg@vu.nl
Jennifer S. Bansard
Jennifer.bansard@gmail.com
Oscar Widerberg
oscar.widerberg@vu.nl
1
DFG Research Training Group 1744/1 WIPCAD, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences,
University of Potsdam, Sigmaringerstr. 34, 10713 Berlin, Germany
2
Environmental Policy Analysis Department, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University
Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
123
Int Environ Agreements (2017) 17:229–246
DOI 10.1007/s10784-016-9318-9
1 Introduction
Municipal and subnational climate action is a well-recognized phenomenon in global
environmental governance. Cities and regions have become significant actors (Lee 2013,
108) as well as key sites of climate change governance (Castan Broto and Bulkeley 2013,
92). The idea that that cities, not states, are best equipped to deal with complex problems
such as climate change has become a popular leitmotiv among academics, media and
policy-makers (Kousky and Schneider
2003). Barber (2013, 5), for example, argues that
local actions and global cooperation among cities could bring about a ‘miracle of civic
‘‘glocality’’ promising pragmatism instead of politics, innovation rather than ideology and
solutions in place of sovereignty’ and therefore might circumvent the cumbersome
negotiations under the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). The embodiment of this civic glocality can be observed in the many
transnational municipal and regional networks (TMN) created to connect cities and regions
in their fight against climate change, with the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, the
Covenant of Mayors (CoM) and the Cities for Climate Protection program (CCP) being the
best known examples. Consequently, many observers expect an increasing role for TMNs
in the struggle to limit global warming to 2 C and below (Rosenzweig et al.
2010; Blok
et al. 2012). However, while the phenomenon of subnational climate governance has
received broad attention among academics, few studies have to date scrutinized the overall
institutional architecture of urban climate governance as an interconnected and aggregate
governance intervention. In fact, instead of focusing on how the overall system of TMNs is
related to the UNFCCC and national mitigation pledges (for example by their ambition
levels) and interacts with each other (for example through a city’s membership in more
than one network), research has predominantly produced exploratory single case studies or
focused on explaining network membership or policy effects at the municipal level.
What is missing is a rigorous assessment of the aggregate phenomenon of transnational
municipal networks in climate governance. In this contribution, we critically assess the
assumption that TMNs are a feasible addition to and partial substitute for ambitious inter-
national and binding mitigation actions. For this assumption to be true, we would expect
TMNs to (a) include members situated in regions with high emissions or high emission
growth rates; (b) avoid duplication of work and double-counting; (c) set ambitious and
unambiguous mitigation targets that go beyond what national governments have agreed to in
the UNFCCC context; and (d) have appropriate monitoring mechanisms in place to report and
verify commitments. Our empirical analysis suggests that the aggregate system of TMNs falls
short of being an effective substitute for ambitious international climate action.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section
2 reviews existing scholarly work to date,
highlighting relevant conceptualizations and definitions as well as key research findings
and core assumptions. On this basis, we identify existing research gaps and propose a way
forward along four guiding questions: What is the geographical distribution of cities in
transnational municipal networks? Who are the central players and what overlaps exist
between them? What is the current ambition level of city commitments? What monitoring
and reporting mechanisms are in place to guarantee a minimum level of transparency?
Section
3 presents our findings related to the geographical distribution of cities in
transnational municipal networks, Sect.
4 engages with the question of overlaps and
double-counting among TMNs, Sect.
5 analyzes the mitigation commitments of TMNs,
and Sect.
6 scrutinizes monitoring and reporting mechanisms, before we conclude with
some next steps for research on urban climate governance.
230 J. S. Bansard et al.
123
2 State of the art
Subnational climate governance and the related networks among municipalities and
regions are by no means a new phenomenon. At the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), local authorities were identified as important
stakeholders with a direct link to the public, and the resulting local agenda 21 process was
one of the most tangible outcomes of UNCED (
1992). By 1993, the international alliance
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) initiated the Cities for Climate Protection
program (CCP), which quickly grew to involve hundreds of cities (Betsill and Bulkeley
2004). Local authorities’ involvement in climate governance was also triggered by the first
Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, where local government and municipal
authorities were recognized as a constituency (UNFCCC
2010). Over the past decades,
municipalities have been increasingly vocal in demanding recognition and support for local
climate action, especially since the launch of the Local Government Climate Roadmap at
COP 13 in 2007 (for a concise overview of the history of urban climate governance, see
Bulkeley et al.
2012a, b, 546–548).
Cities are both part of the problem and the solution to climate change (Kamal-Chaoui
and Roberts
2009). By some accounts, cities account for around 70 % of global greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, use 80 % of global energy supply and consume 75 % of all natural
resources (UN-HABITAT
2011; UNEP 2015). Cities are considered to be laboratories of
social change (Hoornweg et al.
2011) and centers of innovation for their counties and the
global economy (De Sherbinin et al.
2007). Bulkeley and Castan Broto (2012) recall
utopian ideals such as the garden city and highlight the experimental quality of cities. They
see experimental projects as critical in creating niches which can ultimately challenge
regime dominance (Bulkeley and Castan Broto
2012). This diversity and the practical
nature of local projects make them ‘bound to bring forward genuinely new ideas and
solutions that in the end can have an impact on a larger scale’ (Gustavsson et al.
2009, 21).
Most scholars seem to agree that considerable work to address climate change is already
being done at the subnational level and that the active integration, reinforcement and
facilitation of urban climate governance are an essential issue in the development of the
future climate change governance architecture (Bodansky and Diringer
2014; Schroeder
and Lovell
2009). This has led Ostrom (2009) to note that ‘global solutions negotiated at a
global level, if not backed up by a variety of efforts at national, regional, and local levels
[…] are not guaranteed to work well’ (p. 4).
2.1 Definitions and conceptualizations
To refer to on the one hand municipalities and subnational regions as actors and prime sites of
climate governance, and to networks of those actors on the other hand, we suggest subnational
climate governance as an umbrella term, alternatives being ‘urban politics of climate change’
(Bulkeley and Betsill
2013) or ‘urban climate governance’ (e.g., Bulkeley 2010a, b). With
reference to multiple interactions among individual municipalities and subnational regions,
the term ‘transnational municipal network’ (TMN), denoting city networks of various sizes
and at various levels (national, regional, global), is widely accepted among scholars (Betsill
and Bulkeley
2006; Toly 2008; Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Giest and Howlett 2013). Kern and
Bulkeley (2009, 309–310) suggest three defining criteria for TMNs: First, members are free to
leave the network at any time; second, networks are non-hierarchical; and third, network
decisions are directly implemented by the members.
Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of… 231
123
2.2 Research foci and key findings
Research on subnational climate governance
1
has generally speaking fallen into three
distinct categories: first, studies that focus on municipalities or subnational regions as the
unit of analysis (Gustavsson et al.
2009; Bulkeley and Schroeder 2011 ; Bulkeley and
Castan Broto
2012; Castan Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Bulkeley and Betsill 2013), often
within the context of a specific polity (e.g., Granberg and Elander 2007 on Sweden;
Schreurs
2008 on the US, Germany and Japan; Collier and Lo
¨
fstedt 1997 on the UK and
Sweden). Second, studies that focus on transnational municipal networks as the unit of
analysis (Betsill and Bulkeley
2004; Bulkeley 2005; Betsill and Bulkeley 2006; Toly 2008;
Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Lee and van de Meene 2012; Giest and Howlett 2013). The
majority of studies that focus on TMNs as governance instruments (with the notable ex-
ception of Bulkeley et al.
2012a, b) however use a (sometimes comparative) case study
approach. The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program has been by far the most
popular case (e.g., Betsill and Bulkeley
2004, 2006; Toly 2008), followed by the Cities
Climate Leadership Group, C40 (Lee and van de Meene 2012; Acuto 2013 ; Bouteligier
2013). Case studies are also available for less well-known networks such as the Interna-
tional Solar Cities Initiative, ISCI (Toly
2008), the Climate Alliance and the Energy Cities
network (Kern and Bulkeley 2009).
A third group of studies can be identified that links municipal and subnational climate
policy with transnational municipal networks as a distinct form of governance. Exploring
the link between city-specific characteristics (such as being hubs of international economic
and policy interactions) and membership in TMNs, Lee (
2013) finds that globalization is a
driving factor for city participation in transnational networks. A reverse argument is
considered by Krause (
2012) and Lee and Koski (2014) when the impact of network
membership on actual climate policy performance is scrutinized. Both studies confirm a
moderately positive effect of network membership on levels of policy implementation for
the C40 and CCP cities, but not for the US Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection
Agreement, thus pointing to existing functional differences among TMNs.
In addition to broader conceptual questions about the significance of subnational climate
governance, scholars have asked a variety of questions: What determines policy effec-
tiveness and ambition levels of municipal climate actions (exploring both city internal and
external factors)? What determines membership in transnational municipal networks?
What concrete urban policies and instruments are used to address climate change (in the
words of Castan Broto and Bulkeley
2013: urban climate change experiments)? How are
global power relations reflected in TMNs (is there a North–South divide in subnational
climate governance)? Much of the literature also analyzes concrete examples of subna-
tional mitigation policies (Comodi et al.
2012; Corfee-Morlot et al. 2009; Gustavsson et al.
2009); these relate to various sectors and actions, including energy (e.g., combined heat
and power generation); transport (e.g., alternative transportation infrastructure); land-use
planning (e.g., reduction in commuting distances, traffic management); buildings (e.g.,
insulation and lighting standards); waste management (e.g., methane recovery); and citizen
outreach (e.g., education and training). To study these questions, a broad range of theo-
retical approaches, from actor-network theory to multi-level governance and neo-Grams-
cian governmentality, have been applied (Acuto
2013; Bulkeley and Schroeder 2011).
1
Predominantly, studies focus on climate change mitigation; studies that address climate change adaptation
are still rare (with the exception of Juhola and Westerhoff
2011;Fu
¨
nfgeld 2015).
232 J. S. Bansard et al.
123
2.3 The research gap
While research has produced valuable insights into causes and consequences of urban
climate governance and transnational municipal networks, we are currently lacking a
systematic assessment of the broader institutional architecture of networked urban climate
governance. Such an assessment is required for a number of reasons: First, the predominant
focus on one or two popular cases of city networks has so far stood in the way of assessing
the overall geographical spread of cities participating in governance networks. Second,
overlap between networks in terms of city membership might lead to double-counting of
commitments or forum shopping behavior (choosing the appropriate venue for furthering
individual interests); therefore, only an aggregate view can meaningfully assess the broader
impacts of TMNs. Third, there is a tendency to perceive TMNs as a unified and coherent
phenomenon. However, only an aggregate analysis of the entire governance field can
reveal the coherence or incoherence of municipal climate actions in terms of ambitions
levels, base years, measurement metrics and other variable factors. Fourth, the networks
are seen as less subject to political bargaining and more focused on the delivery of results
than the UNFCCC; yet, the reporting mechanisms that could prove this assumption have
not been examined. In other words, is the aggregate phenomenon of transnational
municipal networks a viable alternative to international top-down climate governance?
Consequently, in our empirical analysis we assess a set of thirteen TMNs along four
guiding questions: First, is urban climate governance a global phenomenon or are some
regions better represented than others? Second, to what degree does membership in
municipal and subnational climate networks overlap and how does connectedness vary
across networks? Third, do TMNs commit to ambitious emission reductions and how do
these compare to national commitments under the UNFCCC? And fourth, how is their
progress monitored and verified in order to guarantee transparency? In sum, we analyze the
broader governance architecture of TMNs in order to assess their potential contribution to
climate change mitigation.
The thirteen TMNs have been selected following a literature review and complemented
with a Web search using English, French, German and Spanish keywords on the Google
search engine.
2
Four selection criteria were used. First, we focus on climate mitigation
action and exclude networks working on adaptation or general sustainable development
issues (e.g., the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network, MayorsAdapt or
ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability). Second, the network should be transna-
tional and include subnational authorities in at least two states, thus excluding single-
country networks (e.g., the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the USA). Third, the
networks should have a functioning and recently updated Web site. Fourth, meta-networks,
i.e., those whose members are networks themselves (e.g., the United Cities and Local
Governments), were also excluded. Table
1 gives an overview of the TMNs in our sample.
3 Geographical distribution in transnational municipal networks
The membership to the UNFCCC is nearly universal and therefore represents (at least in
theory) virtually all GHG emissions. To what extent can TMNs match this level of rep-
resentation? Since cities are believed to account for approximately 70 % of global emis-
sions (UN-Habitat
2011), they have the potential to change the course of a country’s
2
Key words are on file with corresponding author.
Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of… 233
123