emerging tension between contributing to
meaningful global climate governance and
addressing the specific and practical local challenges (Gordon and Acuto 2015).
The shift from government to network governance provides local institutions access to
flows of opportunities, while ‘creating the illusion of empowering all even if in practice,
accountability, legitimacy, legality and equity are
compromised as the most powerful actors influence the whole governance process’ (Gupta et al.
2015, 217). Beyond the need of proving with
specific metrics and indicators the impact on the
ground of those network governance, the trend is
that municipalities have globally become more
connected to each other, since together having
more influence than they would separately
(Andonova et al. 2009). Indeed, ‘the analysis of
various networks shows that environmental
challenges are being addressed through network
management efforts because individual local
governments lack the capacity or resources to
address some issues without the cooperation of
neighbouring municipalities while national governments deliver incentives’ (Giest and Howlett
2013). For instance, European networks were
able to establish a variety of knowledge transfer
and best practice learning mechanisms over the
years by enabling collaboration (Bradford 2004).
Also, since experimenting with different possible
solutions is a feature of urban responses to climate change across the world, sharing information, practices and results of those pioneering
activities could be seen as a driver for networking (Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2012). Policy
learning, from other cities and professionals, has
been indeed reported as one of the core ‘soft and
intangible results of city networks’ (Pattberg and
Widerberg 2015).
In 2005 Selin and Vandeveer predicted that
‘Information about regional climate change and
policy experiences will move beyond the region
via the many (often overlapping) networks of
activists environmental and public health NGOs,
professional organizations, and networks of state
and local officials and administrators (Selin and
Vandeever 2005). The large number of best
practice examples circulated by different
networks (e.g., the Benchmark of Excellence for
Covenant of Mayors signatories) suggests that
this has become reality (Haupt 2018). However,
putting the emphasis on learning it has to be
noted that the actual usefulness and applicability
of best practices, particularly when shared among
‘unequal’ partners, is highly questioned in the
academic literature (e.g. Wolman and Page 2002;
Stead 2012). For instance, a survey of local
government officials in the UK conducted by
Wolman and Page in 2002 indicated that only a
small minority of them believed that best practices play a large or significant role in their
decision-making.
Urban climate change governance still mainly
focuses on the mitigation agenda. This misbalance was pointed out by Bulkeley and Schroeder
(2012), and it appears that it is still the case. De
Gregorio Hurtado et al. (2015) analysed the
urban climate change policies in Spain and Italy
—the two countries with the by far highest participation rate in the Covenant of Mayors initiative—and found out that the vast majority of
local action plans still have to be considered as
pure mitigation plans. However, in the meantime,
some networks have paid more attention to
adaptation, for instance, the Covenant of Mayors,
the new Global Covenant of Mayors or ICLEI.
Besides, new networks focusing on adaptation
only such as 100RC or Asian Cities Climate
Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), have
emerged. This development is well consistent
with the general debate, where the climate summit in Paris 2015 triggered a shift from mitigation to adaptation by promoting the idea to
consider them both as equal components of climate change action (UNFCCC 2015).
3.2 Different Types of Networks
This section provides an overview of the city
networks regarded in this chapter and aims to
highlight the main differences among them. It
aims to illustrate that there is not ‘the city network’. Quite the contrary, city networks
addressing climate change vary significantly, for
instance in terms of size, organizational structure
228
W. Haupt et al.
meaningful global climate governance and
addressing the specific and practical local challenges (Gordon and Acuto 2015).
The shift from government to network governance provides local institutions access to
flows of opportunities, while ‘creating the illusion of empowering all even if in practice,
accountability, legitimacy, legality and equity are
compromised as the most powerful actors influence the whole governance process’ (Gupta et al.
2015, 217). Beyond the need of proving with
specific metrics and indicators the impact on the
ground of those network governance, the trend is
that municipalities have globally become more
connected to each other, since together having
more influence than they would separately
(Andonova et al. 2009). Indeed, ‘the analysis of
various networks shows that environmental
challenges are being addressed through network
management efforts because individual local
governments lack the capacity or resources to
address some issues without the cooperation of
neighbouring municipalities while national governments deliver incentives’ (Giest and Howlett
2013). For instance, European networks were
able to establish a variety of knowledge transfer
and best practice learning mechanisms over the
years by enabling collaboration (Bradford 2004).
Also, since experimenting with different possible
solutions is a feature of urban responses to climate change across the world, sharing information, practices and results of those pioneering
activities could be seen as a driver for networking (Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2012). Policy
learning, from other cities and professionals, has
been indeed reported as one of the core ‘soft and
intangible results of city networks’ (Pattberg and
Widerberg 2015).
In 2005 Selin and Vandeveer predicted that
‘Information about regional climate change and
policy experiences will move beyond the region
via the many (often overlapping) networks of
activists environmental and public health NGOs,
professional organizations, and networks of state
and local officials and administrators (Selin and
Vandeever 2005). The large number of best
practice examples circulated by different
networks (e.g., the Benchmark of Excellence for
Covenant of Mayors signatories) suggests that
this has become reality (Haupt 2018). However,
putting the emphasis on learning it has to be
noted that the actual usefulness and applicability
of best practices, particularly when shared among
‘unequal’ partners, is highly questioned in the
academic literature (e.g. Wolman and Page 2002;
Stead 2012). For instance, a survey of local
government officials in the UK conducted by
Wolman and Page in 2002 indicated that only a
small minority of them believed that best practices play a large or significant role in their
decision-making.
Urban climate change governance still mainly
focuses on the mitigation agenda. This misbalance was pointed out by Bulkeley and Schroeder
(2012), and it appears that it is still the case. De
Gregorio Hurtado et al. (2015) analysed the
urban climate change policies in Spain and Italy
—the two countries with the by far highest participation rate in the Covenant of Mayors initiative—and found out that the vast majority of
local action plans still have to be considered as
pure mitigation plans. However, in the meantime,
some networks have paid more attention to
adaptation, for instance, the Covenant of Mayors,
the new Global Covenant of Mayors or ICLEI.
Besides, new networks focusing on adaptation
only such as 100RC or Asian Cities Climate
Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), have
emerged. This development is well consistent
with the general debate, where the climate summit in Paris 2015 triggered a shift from mitigation to adaptation by promoting the idea to
consider them both as equal components of climate change action (UNFCCC 2015).
3.2 Different Types of Networks
This section provides an overview of the city
networks regarded in this chapter and aims to
highlight the main differences among them. It
aims to illustrate that there is not ‘the city network’. Quite the contrary, city networks
addressing climate change vary significantly, for
instance in terms of size, organizational structure
228
W. Haupt et al.