Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

Henner Busch

doi:10.1080/19463138.2015.1057144

Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

Busch, Henner 2015-07-03 00:00:00 International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 2015 Vol. 7, No. 2, 213–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2015.1057144 Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany Henner Busch * Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS) & Lund University Centre of Excellence for the Integration of Social and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID), Lund, Sweden (Received 14 November 2014; accepted 26 May 2015) In times of ongoing urbanisation and unabated climate change, cities face increasing demands for improvements in urban climate change governance. This article investigates the activities of transnational municipal networks that were set up in response to climate change and analyses their potential to inﬂuence local climate governance. On the basis of a conceptualisation of transnational municipal climate networks (TMCNs), quantitative data on the proliferation of TMCNs amongst German municipalities were assessed and complemented by a qualitative analysis of scientiﬁc and grey literature and interviews. The quanti- tative analysis reveals a wide proliferation of TMCNs in Germany. Finally, the results show that TMCNs have different proﬁles which can be categorised into four functions all of which might inﬂuence local climate change governance. The functions are ‘platform’, ‘consultant’, ‘commitment broker’ and ‘advo- cate’. It is concluded that TMCNs can play a crucial role in fostering climate governance. Keywords: transnational municipal networks; climate governance; Germany; climate change; urban transformation 1. Introduction example, heat waves will have a bigger impact on urban areas due to the heat-island effect (Maria The great importance of cities in the context of et al. 2013). The same goes for ﬂooding, as the climate change has been recognised by both acade- large areas of infrastructure and buildings seal sur- mia and international organisations (Betsill 2001; faces against storm water inﬁltration (Forsee & Kern & Bulkeley 2009;Rosenzweigetal. 2010; Ahmad 2011). The high density of population and UN-Habitat 2011;Kronsell 2013). Cities are cultural and economic values can, amongst other expected to play a major role in relation to climate things, make the impacts of climate change in cities change mitigation and adaptation. This central more severe than in rural settings (Wamsler et al. role is reﬂected in the decisions taken by the last 2013; Wamsler 2014). Despite the fact that per- Conference of the Parties of the United capita greenhouse gas emissions from urban areas Nations framework convention on climate change are often overestimated (Satterthwaite 2008; (UNFCCC) in Warsaw (United Nations Framework Dodman 2009), cities still constitute leverage points Convention on Climate Change 2013, see 5b). for climate change mitigation (Rosenzweig et al. Cities are challenged in different ways with regard 2010;UN-Habitat 2011; Bulkeley 2013;Bulkeley to adaptation. They are vulnerable to climate et al. 2013). The high concentration of infrastruc- change as some of the expected effects will impact ture and the extent of resource ﬂows in cities allow cities proportionately harder than rural areas. For *Email: Henner.busch@lucsus.lu.se © 2015 Taylor & Francis 214 H. Busch for economies of scale to occur if the urban system stated that TMNs ‘are still understudied’ is subject to transformation (Kamal-Chaoui & (Bouteligier 2013, p. 3). Roberts 2009). Consequently, cities will be dispro- Many German municipalities are members of portionally challenged by climate change adapta- TMCNs. Germany is the country with the largest tion and mitigation needs. However, cities also population in the EU and is also the EU’s biggest have great potential to meet these challenges. As economy and emitter of green-house gases local governments, they hold for instance ‘consider- (GHGs) (United Nations 2013). At the same able authority over land use planning and waste time, Germany was able to make considerable management and can play an important role in cuts in emissions of GHGs compared with 1990 dealing with transportation issues and energy con- levels (United Nations 2013). Municipal networks sumption’ (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006, p.141). Either for sustainability in general, and in response to way, cities will play a major role in ﬁnding answers climate change in particular, have a long-standing to the challenges posed by climate change. history in Germany. Both International Council for Despite the immense magnitude of the pro- Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local blem climate change has not sufﬁciently made it Governments for Sustainability as well as Climate onto the agenda of all cities world-wide. Bulkeley Alliance have their headquarters in Germany, with pointed out that ‘for the vast majority of the Climate Alliance having been founded in world’s cities, climate change is far from being a Frankfurt am Main in 1990. signiﬁcant issue’ (Bulkeley 2013, p.104). This Despite the comparatively great attention cli- leads to a situation where climate change is ‘un- mate issues receive at different levels of society, governed’ in the urban context (Bulkeley 2013). the success of Germany in cutting emissions and Consequently, improved urban governance in the widespread membership of TMCNs, no sys- response to climate change is needed. tematic investigation of the impact of these net- Several transnational municipal networks works in Germany has yet been conducted. This (TMNs) that address sustainability challenges research gap makes Germany an important case have emerged in the last few decades. This article study. This article aims at providing the ﬁrst steps focuses exclusively on those TMNs with a clear for addressing this research gap. climate focus. They will be referred to as transna- tional municipal climate networks (TMCNs). The 2. Research questions two largest networks in terms of members are Climate Alliance and the Covenant of Mayors, This article is part of a larger study which aims to which unite several thousand European municipa- increase knowledge and understanding of the role lities in their efforts against climate change. The of TMCNs for urban responses to climate change importance of these networks on local climate in Germany. The main research question answered governance has been highlighted by a small num- in this article is: What potential inﬂuence do ber of scientiﬁc studies which found that TMCNs TMCNs have in Germany when it comes to have the capacity to spread climate change poli- responses to climate change in urban areas? cies amongst their members and thus contribute to Here, inﬂuence is widely deﬁned as modifying the reduction of emissions (e.g. Davies 2005; municipalities’ scope of action for their climate Hakelberg 2011, 2014; Zeppel 2013a). It is how- policies. This can happen by providing access to ever primarily the impact of TMCNs on higher new knowledge, by creating a favourable environ- levels of governance such as national governments ment for local climate policies or by simply or European Union (EU) administration that has increasing the perceived effectiveness of these been in focus in the past research (Bulkeley et al. policies. 2003; Keiner & Kim 2007; Toly 2008; Kern & The following sub-research questions contri- Bulkeley 2009). Not surprisingly, Bouteligier bute to assessing the potential impact: International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 215 (1) What is the degree of proliferation of sustainable urban development. ‘TMNs (. . .) are TMCNs in Germany? networks of municipalities which operate nation- (2) How are the TMCNs linked to mitigation ally and transnationally, so that TMNs represent and adaptation, respectively? and involve cities directly in policy issues at the (3) What kind of functions do TMCNs pro- international and European levels, and across vide to municipalities, and how can these national borders’ (p. 236). While this deﬁnition be categorised with respect to climate helps to give an initial idea of TMNs, it is still change governance? very broad and, for example, does not answer (4) What impacts of TMNs on local climate questions about the degree of integration of governance did earlier studies ﬁnd for TMNs. An institutionally even broader deﬁnition Germany? of TMCNs is presented by Keiner and Kim (5) How are TMCNs linked to each other (Keiner & Kim 2007); according to them the institutionally? term encompasses short-term cooperation between two cities (as long as these cities are located in A more detailed review of the literature relevant different countries) or climate competition for each of the research questions can be found in between European municipalities. Kern and Section 5 of this article. Bulkeley listed three characteristics for TMCNs that can serve as more focussed deﬁnitions (Kern & Bulkeley 2009). These characteristics are (a) 3. Theoretical background: transnational voluntary membership, (b) networks appear to be municipal climate networks ‘non-hierarchical, horizontal and polycentric’ and Governance research has addressed networks since thus they constitute a form of self-governance and the late 1990s. Two approaches to networks have (c) in contrast to conventional non-governmental emerged (Klijn & Skelcher 2007). According to organizations (NGOs) the networks do not exclu- the ﬁrst approach, networks constitute arenas of sively focus on lobbying and mobilisation but the policy making where different stakeholders can de facto implementation of measures through the come together and partake in political processes members (309 f). outside the restraining procedures of representative Summarising Kern and Bulkeley, I see democracy. Here, networks are understood as the TMCNs as institutionalised spaces where local horizontal dependencies between actors (Hajer governments from different countries come et al. 2003). The second approach takes a more together as equitable partners in an exchange on critical stance on governance and networks. In this climate change related issues. Furthermore, the approach, networks are understood as centres of investigated TMCNs have to fulﬁl a speciﬁc set power in which actors with particular private inter- of criteria. First, networks must of course be trans- est can take advantage of structural conditions to national. This does not necessarily mean global steer policy processes (Lowndes 2001). Both but networks have to operate in more than one approaches share the assumption that the actors country. Second, networks must have members in within the networks are different with regard to Germany in order to meet the geographical focus their legal status as well as by the power they hold. chosen for this article. Networks must have a Although the local governments within TMCNs certain level of formality with regard to member- differ in size and inﬂuence they do not constitute ship. This means that members gain certain rights entities from different spheres and all are public upon joining the networks. This could be access to actors involved in local policies. Therefore, a more material provided by the network or invitations to nuanced deﬁnition is needed for this article. annual network meetings. Loose cooperation or Bulkeley et al. (Bulkeley et al. 2003) provided conferences are not considered. Additionally, net- a basic deﬁnition of TMNs in the context of works must have more than two members and be 216 H. Busch currently active. These criteria were applied to selection of TMCNs for this article that at ﬁrst adjust the scope to a manageable level while not sight might seem to be arbitrary. losing the focus as deﬁned by the research ques- A further reﬁnement of the concept of TMNs tions above. is related to the question of whether these net- The networks that explicitly address climate works constitute agents or if they only act change include those that were explicitly set up through the agency of their members. For this with reference to climate change and those that research, it is assumed that the investigated address climate change-induced disasters. TMCNs are indeed agents – despite the fact Networks with broader, more abstract objectives that their authority and legitimacy derive from – such as sustainable urban development (ICLEI, their members. There are three reasons that jus- EuroCities) – and networks that address climate tify assigning agency to the TMCNs in question. change as a side aspect of other issues were First, each network is more than the sum of its excluded. The term ‘transnational’ is used in dif- parts or members; otherwise there is no initial ferent ways in the body of the scientiﬁc literature motivation to study the networks. Second, the on TMNs. Most of the publications on this issue role networks play in global environmental gov- come from the political sciences and from ernance (e.g. UNFCCC negotiations) has been researchers who work in international relations. acknowledged by many scholars (Bulkeley et al. The main difference in various deﬁnitions is 2003; Betsill & Bulkeley 2004, 2006; Andonova whether the inclusion of private actors is a neces- et al. 2009; Bouteligier 2013). Lindseth framed sary precondition for governance to be transna- the Cities for Climate Protection Programme as tional. Andonova et al. argued that this is the ‘an actor trying to mobilise and persuade cities to case (Andonova et al. 2009) whereas Risse- work on climate protection’ (Lindseth 2004, Kappen, for example, wrote only about ‘non- p. 326). Lastly, the networks investigated for this article all command at least a basic infra- state agents’ (Risse-Kappen 1995). Private actors can become members (often observer status or structure with ofﬁces and staff. comparable) in several of the networks investi- The review of the literature on TMCNs above gated; however in this article, their presence is showed that the topic has mostly been addressed not considered a precondition for constituting by scholars from the political sciences and in transnationality. particular by scholars in international relations. The boundaries between different types of net- Consequently, many of the publications focus on works are often not clear-cut (Keiner & Kim the impact TMCNs have on global environmental 2007). Institutions that have a name including the governance (Bulkeley et al. 2003;Betsill & term ‘campaign’ might have much clearer resem- Bulkeley 2004;Toly 2008; e.g. Andonova et al. blance to the above deﬁnition of TMCNs than 2009;Curtis 2010). Many researchers underline other networks that include the term ‘network’ in the importance of the multilevel perspective their name. The former ‘Cities for Climate when analysing the impact TMNs have on Protection Campaign’, now ‘Cities for Climate (European) governance, thus hinting at the sev- Protection Programme’ (CCP), could be seen as eral roles TMCNs play simultaneously by (poten- an example of this phenomenon. CCP ‘only’ is tially) inﬂuencing local, regional, national, EU labelled as a ‘programme’ run by a TMN that does and even global governance of climate change not explicitly focus on climate change (ICLEI). (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006;Fay 2007). What all However, CCP meets all the requirements for the former studies have in common is the focus inclusion in this research. Further examples of on issues of climate change mitigation, be it the absence of clear-cut boundaries between net- through the proﬁle of networks that were inves- work categories follow in the analysis section of tigated or through a focus on mitigation policies this article. This labelling issue results in a by the researchers. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 217 4. Methodology encountered when the data for the quantitative analysis were compiled and (c) to help with devel- This case study builds on different data collection opment of the conceptual framework on network methods. First, a literature review of the relevant functions. articles on TMCNs was conducted to gain an All German municipalities that are members of overview of the current research on this issue. TMCNs were considered, but for the qualitative The Scientiﬁc literature from the last decade was analysis special focus lies on the membership of taken into consideration to reﬂect the ongoing German larger cities (ger. Großstadt >100,000 changes in the TMCN landscape and to reduce inhabitants). By focusing on Germany, a case-spe- the amount of literature to a manageable level. ciﬁc bias is created and it will only partly be The articles were identiﬁed through search in possible to generalise ﬁndings from this investiga- Google scholar and the author’s home university tion to a wider international context. literature search engine. Search terms for whole article search were ‘transnational municipal net- work(s)’, ‘city network(s)’, ‘climate network(s)’, 5. Results and discussion ‘municipal network(s)’, ‘municipal climate net- work(s)’ and the respective German translations. The answers to each of the sub-research questions Furthermore, snowball sampling was applied start- provide indications that help to address the main ing from the bibliographies of articles and books research question. To link the many different indi- that were identiﬁed through Google scholar and cations to the main objective of this article, in this LibHub. Furthermore, the publication lists of key section the discussion of each of the ﬁndings fol- authors that have published in this ﬁeld were lows immediately after the presentation of the related results. scanned for further results. During the literature review, special attention was paid to how the focus of research has developed over time. Second, a database of TMCNs active in 5.1. TMCNs in Germany Germany was compiled. Based on the ﬁrst data- Eight relevant networks have been identiﬁed. An base, a second database listing all memberships of overview of size and focus of the networks can be German municipalities with these networks was found in Table 1. These networks differ greatly in created. These two databases served as a basis the overall size and proliferation in Germany. It for the quantitative analysis of TMCNs’ activities should be noted that the number of German mem- in Germany. On the basis of the literature review berships is not necessarily proportionate to the and the quantitative analysis of the databases, networks’ overall size internationally. Further dif- relevant grey literature (e.g. reports, brochures, ferences can be found when looking at who is websites and videos by or on TMCNs) was eligible to join the networks. For example, the analysed. World Mayors Council on Climate Change Further data were collected by means of obser- accepts, on an individual membership basis, per- vation at network conferences and seven inter- sons who have at some stage been, or remain, views with key informants among the former and mayors of a city. Here, the focus is much more current staff of networks and cities. These inter- on individual skills and abilities. Climate Alliance views served three purposes: (a) in line with trans- on the other hand is primarily a network of local disciplinary research (Moses & Knutsen 2007; governments, although it does accept membership Jerneck et al. 2010; Khagram et al. 2010)to from other legal entities too. The homepage of include practitioners into the research process at Climate Alliance states that ‘(. . .) cities, municipa- an early stage by helping to formulate the research lities and districts as well as provinces, NGOs and questions; (b) to sort out inconsistencies that were further organisations are members of Climate 218 H. Busch Table 1. Overview TMCNs active in Germany. No. of Geographical members Cooperation focus No. of in Year Initial Current with other (exceptionally Name members Germany founded focus focus Founded by networks strong) C40 58 2 2005 Mitigation Both Bottom up ICLEI Global Cities for Climate 176 11 1990 Mitigation Both ICLEI – Local ICLEI Europe and Protection Governments for Middle East Program (CCP) Sustainability (Finland, UK) Climate Alliance 1403 466 1990 Mitigation Both Bottom up Covenant of Mainly Europe Mayors (Austria, Germany) Covenant of Mayors 4981 53 2008 Mitigation Mitigation EU, Energy Cities Energy Cities, Mainly EU Climate (Italy, Spain) Alliance Energy Cities 1510 7 1990 Mitigation Mitigation Bottom up Covenant of Mainly Europe Mayors (France) Future cities 8 2 2009 Adaptation Adaptation Bottom up - Northwest Europe Mayors adapt 105 5 2014 Adaptation Adaptation EU, Covenant of Covenant of Mainly EU Mayors, Mayors, (Italy, Spain) European Climate Environment Alliance, Agency (EEA) EUROCITIES World Mayors 122 2 2005 Both Both Bottom up Resilient Cities Global Council on ICLEI/ Climate Change UNISDR Resilient City The Making Cities 1626 1 2010 Adaptation Adaptation UNISDR ICLEI Global Resilient: ‘My City is Getting Ready!’ Campaign Note: Both = adaptation and mitigation; UNISDR = United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 219 Alliance.’ Amongst the NGOs are local energy 100,000 inhabitants, 68 are organised in at least efﬁciency agencies or smaller environmental one of the networks. Of these cities, three have a NGOs. Finally, great differences can be found special status as they constitute Federal States, when looking at the commitments members have which in turn encompass several local govern- to make upon joining the networks. These differ ments; these are Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. from no binding commitment (World Mayors Nevertheless, most local governments that hold Council on Climate Change) to the development membership (314 of 488) are rather small, with of a sophisticated climate action plan (Covenant of less than 50,000 inhabitants each. Mayors). These 488 governments have a total of 552 The large number of members of Climate memberships of the 9 identiﬁed networks. 41 Alliance can be explained by the historical devel- governments have more than one membership. opment of the network. Climate Alliance was This group is dominated by major cities. Only founded in Frankfurt (Main), Germany, in 1990 12 of these governments have less than 100,000 by 12 municipalities from Germany, Austria and inhabitants. This accounts for 30% of the gov- Switzerland, 6 indigenous NGOs and members ernments that have more than one membership. from other organisations (other NGOs, university) Municipalities with less than 100,000 inhabitants (Climate Alliance). In its early years Climate account for 80% of the population of all the Alliance was a German-speaking network and municipalities holding membership of a had strong ties to the German development assis- network. tance scene. Not surprisingly, the networks’ Thirteen cities are members of more than two strongholds are the two German-speaking coun- networks. These are (in order of increasing popu- tries, Germany and Austria, with 466 and 960 lation): Worms (3), Heidelberg (5), Rostock (3), members, respectively, out of a total of 1661 Freiburg im Breisgau (5), Aachen (3), Karlsruhe European members. (3), Münster (3), Bonn (5), Hannover (4), Stuttgart The fact that the TMCNs with most members (4), Frankfurt am Main (3), München (4) and (Covenant of Mayors, Energy Cities and Climate Berlin (4). All but one (Worms with 80,000 inha- Alliance) are active in Germany can be seen as a bitants) of these cities have more than 100,000 ﬁrst indication of the inﬂuence these networks inhabitants and all are members of the two most have on German municipalities. dominant networks in Germany, namely, Climate In Germany, 488 local or regional bodies are Alliance and the Covenant of Mayors. In the case organised in one or more of the 9 climate net- of Heidelberg, it should be noted that the city also works. Most of them are municipal level entities. acquired the title ‘City of Ambition’ within the However, 29 districts, as well as 2 associations of Cities for Climate Protection Programme. While municipalities located along river catchments single cities seem to have taken a very active role (Lippe and Emscher), have also acquired member- by joining many networks simultaneously, the ship. These 488 entities account for more than great majority (448) of municipalities in 44.5 Mio inhabitants (double counting elimi- Germany are members of only one network. nated). This means that more than half the These numbers show that TMCN membership German population live in areas in which the is widespread in Germany. More than half the local government is a member of at least one of German population live in municipalities or cities the networks. The database shows a wide prolif- which have joined at least one of the networks. In eration of the networks amongst major cities in addition, some cities are members of several net- Germany. The 32 biggest German cities are mem- works. The wide proliferation of networks bers of at least one of the networks. Of the biggest amongst German municipalities in general and 50 German cities, 48 hold at least one membership cities in particular can also be regarded as an and of all 76 German cities with more than indication of the potential that these networks 220 H. Busch might have in addressing the insufﬁciencies of as a public good to which everybody has access. urban climate governance. At the same time, the provider of this public good, namely the municipality that cuts emis- sions, beneﬁts only marginally from the mitiga- 5.2. TMCNs – adaptation and mitigation tion measures it adopts. TMCNs could in this Most networks initially focussed on mitigation or context serve in two ways: a combination of mitigation and adaptation (see Table 1). The two largest networks that account (1) The great number of other municipalities for the vast majority of memberships in Germany could work as an indicator of climate soli- were initially founded as pure mitigation net- darity. Knowing that others are on board works. Until recently, adaptation alone does not creates the notion of being part of a bigger seem to have been motivated enough for the estab- movement. lishment and wide proliferation of TMCNs. What (2) Municipalities that join a network openly has brought about this development? Firstly, his- commit to the goal of cutting emissions. toric reasons have contributed to this imbalance. Therefore, it is much less likely that these Mitigation was on the agenda of policy makers in municipalities will indulge in free-riding Europe before adaptation entered the stage behaviour (Fay 2007). (Wilbanks et al. 2003; Bulkeley 2010). Mentioning adaptation was morally problematic Several networks started off as combined miti- as it indicated acceptance of the inevitability of gation and adaptation networks. Besides these climate change and thus questioned the legitimacy mixed networks, a development of recent years is of mitigation efforts (Pielke et al. 2007). The last that networks that initially were pure mitigation decade or so has seen a change in the debate; networks have taken adaptation into their portfo- adaptation has not only become an acceptable lio. Climate Alliance, for example, has participated topic (Adger et al. 2009) but, as global climate in a number of climate change adaptation projects. negotiations stalled and alarming information In cooperation with the EU, the Adaptation emerged regarding the prospects for climate and Mitigation - an Integrated Climate Policy change, it has become a necessity (IPCC 2007). Approach project was implemented (Climate Secondly, mitigation measures are in many Alliance 2005) from 2005 to 2010 and, currently, cases similar in different settings (e.g. fostering the Klima Scout Project is being executed in coop- energy-efﬁciency or development of renew- eration with the German Federal Ministry for the ables). Adaptation measures, however, are often Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear perceived as tailor-made according to local con- Safety and the Umweltbundesamt (Climate ditions (Wamsler 2014). This perceived ‘indivi- Alliance 2012). This cooperation can be seen as duality’ of adaptation measures might make the a further indicator of the recognition of the net- transfer of knowledge on this topic in the setting works’ importance in environmental governance of TMCNs much more complicated. by other than local actors in the European multi- Thirdly, mitigation and adaptation are two level system (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006). very different goods in the economic sense of Moreover, climate change adaptation was the term. Following Elinor Ostrom’s reasoning, taken up by networks that do not exclusively one could frame adaptation as a private good that focus on climate change related topics or that beneﬁts only a certain group of people, namely, were initially not at all concerned with climate the inhabitants of a municipality (Tompkins & change. Two examples for the ﬁrst are the Eakin 2012). Others who live outside the munici- UNISDR Resilient Cities Campaign and ICLEI – pality’s borders are excluded from using it. Local Governments for Sustainability. These net- Mitigation on the other hand can thus be framed works include climate change adaptation as one International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 221 aspect of their wider objectives. For the Resilient sphere of inﬂuence and the general advancement Cities Campaign, the issue of climate change in the issue of climate change adaptation adaptation is part of their approach to make cities (Wamsler 2014). The recently (March 2014) more resilient (UNISDR 2012), while ICLEI launched Mayors Adapt, which serves as an includes responses to climate change as part adaptation complement to the Covenant of of the transition towards sustainability that their Mayors, is further proof of this development. members have committed themselves to initiate Thus, the trend towards more adaptation on the (ICLEI). ICLEI also hosts a number of sub-net- agenda of TMCNs continues. works and projects that are concerned with climate change. The most important of these ICLEI-run 5.3. Functions of TMCNs sub-networks in the context of climate change is the Cities for Climate Protection Programme In the following section, a conceptualisation of (CCP). As ICLEI constitutes a kind of meta-net- TMCNs is undertaken. This conceptualisation is work which acts through sub-networks, it was not a synthesis based on the literature review and considered in this investigation. An example of a on an analysis of the collected empirical network that was founded for entirely different material. reasons would be the Union of the Baltic Cities A rather general deﬁnition of TMCN func- (UBC). On the homepage of UBC, the network is tions is provided by Andonova et al. Three described thus ‘Union of the Baltic Cities is a different ‘functional categories’ for all kinds voluntary, proactive network mobilizing the of different networks in the context of transna- shared potential of over 100 member cities for tional climate governance have been identiﬁed democratic, economic, social, cultural and envir- (Andonova et al. 2009). The functional cate- onmentally sustainable development of the Baltic gories are: information-sharing, capacity- Sea Region’ (http://www.ubc.net/). As this building and implementation and rule-setting. description shows, climate change is not in the The ﬁrst category, information-sharing, can be main focus of this organisation. However, it does divided into two sub-functions, one for exter- concern itself with these issues in the form of, e.g., nal use beyond the network’s structures and the setting agendas of network meetings accordingly other for internal use within the network’s or by providing links on their websites to other structure. The external use of information may transnational municipal (climate) networks such as be seen ‘as a tool of political leverage’ ICLEI, Climate Alliance or Energy Cities. Like (Andonova et al. 2009, p. 63) when it is used ICLEI and EURO Cities, the UBC network was to exert pressure on actors outside the network not considered for the quantitative investigation such as nation-states. If the internal use of for this article. information is accepted as authoritative and is The historic development of TMCNs shows used to steer members within the network in a ﬁrst wave of mitigation networks in the early their political decision-making, it may be 1990s and a second wave around the mid-2000s framed as a form of internal governance by that brought the adaptation issue onto the cli- the networks. Networks that use information mate network agenda. This suggests that the in these ways include, e.g. advocacy networks accumulated impact of the networks is more and epistemic communities. The second func- established and probably much more important tional category is capacity-building and imple- in relation to mitigation than adaptation. The mentation, which includes the provision of realisation that networks which formerly resources through networks. These resources focussed only on mitigation have adopted the canbeanythingsuchas ‘ﬁnancial resources, topic of adaptation can furthermore be viewed expertise, labour, technology or monitoring’ as a testament of the expansion of the networks’ (Andonova et al. 2009, p. 64). Within these 222 H. Busch networks, processes of negotiating the ﬂow of of investigating the networks’ impact on the these resources take centre-stage. The third local level. functional category is rule-setting by govern- After analysing the available literature on ance networks. In this kind of network, rules TMNs, Bouteligier came to the conclusion that are developed and members voluntarily commit ‘few generalizable analytical frameworks have to these rules. The authors pointed out that the been formulated so far’ by the literature that functional categories are not mutually exclu- focuses on cities as actors within networks sive and that networks might be characterised (Bouteligier 2013, p. 48). In speaking of TMN by all three functions. In the case of the goals, she identiﬁed three functions that are similar TMCNs that were investigated for this article, to the Andonova et al. framework: ‘(1) exchange this deﬁnitely seems to be case. While this information, knowledge and best practices; (2) typology is probably the best available for increase cities’ capacity; and (3) voice cities’ con- analysing transnational climate networks, it cerns in the international arena’. However, no has a disadvantage that makes it inadequate framework is developed from this analysis of for this article. This disadvantage lies in the TMNs goals. way in which the authors locate actors. The The analysis of the identiﬁed functions of ‘three functional categories’ they identify TMCNs, which was conducted for this article led were derived ‘by considering the way in to a reﬁned categorisation that assists, ﬁrst, in which networks steer members towards parti- bringing some degree of order into a slightly con- cular public purposes’ (Andonova et al. 2009, fusing ﬁeld of research where geographical and p. 63). This rather passive view of the mem- functional overlaps occur. Secondly, it helps us bers of the network is conﬁrmed in p. 64, to understand these overlaps by identifying where the authors speak about The Climate whether networks work in a complementary way, or whether they compete in the same niche. Group, a hybrid network consisting of public and private members. Here, the authors write Thirdly, a categorisation provides a ﬁrst under- about ‘governing constituents’ and again ‘steer standing of what incentives municipalities have constituents’. Bouteligier sorted the literature to join networks. As this framework is based on on TMNs into two different groups: studies the analysis of both the empirical material and the that see cities as spaces and those that see literature in this ﬁeld there is, of course, an overlap them as actors (Bouteligier 2013). I acknowl- with frameworks developed by other researchers, edge that networks assume actor status on their the most important being those of Toly and own. However, I argue that members of a Andonova et al. (Toly 2008; Andonova et al. TMCN retain their agency and increase rather 2009). than decreasing their scope of available options A ﬁrst attempt to categorise the networks upon joining a TMCN. Even if Andonova active in Germany can be found in Table 1. et al. did not intend to negate cities’ actor While this provides a ﬁrst overview of the net- status their focus on the networks (and not works’ general characteristics, it does not reﬂect the members) makes their typology inappropri- the actual activities undertaken by the TMCNs. ate for this article. Furthermore, the categorisa- From an analysis of these activities four main tion of ‘information sharing’ seems to be too functions emerged. These will be used in further broad for a sensible application to TMCNs. categorisation and analysis of the networks that Internal information-sharing and external infor- were investigated for this article (see Table 2). mation-sharing are in the case of TMCNs fun- These functions are: damentally different functions with very different requirements. Combining them in (1) Networks as platforms, one sole function is inadequate for the purpose (2) Networks as consultants, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 223 Table 2. Functions of TMCNs. Networks as Networks as Commitment Name platform consultants brokers City advocates C40 High Low Medium Medium Cities for Climate Protection Program (CCP) Low High Medium High (through ICLEI) Climate Alliance High High Medium High Covenant of Mayors Medium High High - Energy Cities High High Low Medium Future cities High Medium - - Mayors Adapt High Medium - - World Mayors Council on Climate Change High High Medium High (through ICLEI) The Making Cities Resilient: ‘My City is High Medium - Medium Getting Ready!’ Campaign Notes: Networks as platforms – low: public membership list; medium: + best practice examples are advertised; high: + regular member conferences. Networks as consultants – low: some information material for members is available; medium: + networks have produced their own material and offer access to their members; high: + members are accompanied by network staff in their implementation processes. Networks as commitment brokers – low: members commit to abstract mitigation goals; medium: + members commit to concrete (quantiﬁable) goals / criteria from “high” on a voluntary basis; high: + progress by members is reported and reports are accessible by other members. Cities’ advocate – low: networks talk about national/international global climate governance; medium: + networks actively lobby on national or international level; high: networks are present at high proﬁle conferences such as COP negotiations. (3) Networks as commitment brokers, and Lindseth 2004; Keiner & Kim 2007;Curtis 2010; (4) Networks as city advocates. Bouteligier 2013). Observations at network confer- ences conﬁrm that this function fosters the These functions are not mutually exclusive. exchange of ideas between cities. Naturally, the The networks investigated have complex activity focus is on communicating best-practice examples portfolios and thus can adopt several of these and the ways in which these can inspire other functions at the same time. municipalities. However, it seems to be at least Networks as platforms describe the space that conceivable that this space is used with different networks grant their members to exchange informa- motives. Place-branding (with sustainability tion and know-how amongst themselves. Networks achievements) has become an activity many cities thus become arenas for the horizontal exchange of and even regions engage in (Dinnie 2010). The climate change expertise. Municipalities that spear- Öresund region that encompasses Copenhagen and headed the implementation of local climate change large parts of densely populated Southern Sweden responses seem to be particularly active in using has for example made a considerable effort to brand networks to disseminate information (Kern & itself as green and sustainable (Anderberg & Clark Bulkeley 2009). Networks provide this space 2012). The special status that some cities can through, for example, ‘best-practice workshops’ at acquire in ICLEI’s CCP, namely ‘City of their conferences or through member proﬁle pages Ambition’ (in Germany Heidelberg), can be seen on the ofﬁcial websites. The space that networks as a further indication of the possibility for cities to grant their members is mostly associated with learn- use the networks as platforms for place-branding ing processes (e.g. Betsill & Bulkeley 2004; activities. 224 H. Busch The second function is that of networks as argument in favour of ambitious climate measures. consultants. Networks that take on this role Given the nature of the issue this mainly refers to actively help their members to achieve their cli- climate change mitigation policies. mate protection goals by providing information Last but not least, some networks assume the and supporting members in implementing local function of city advocates. In this role, networks solutions. Networks apply different measures lobby for their members’ interest at higher admin- when fulﬁlling this function. Upon joining, istrative levels, such as nation states or the EU. members often obtain access to the networks’ Many TMCNs keep ofﬁces in Brussels (Energy know-how and management tools. These include Cities, Covenant of Mayors and Climate Alliance) specialised software for the assessment of local and the Covenant of Mayors as well as Mayors emissions or ‘step-by-step’ instructions on how to Adapt are ofﬁcially supported by the European implement local climate policies (Zeppel 2013a). Commission. Staff from Networks also attend In providing these services, networks do not rely international conferences such as the Conference on their members’ infrastructure and know-how of the Parties (COP). In this way, local govern- but fall back on their ‘own’ resources. Staff of ments are enabled to leapfrog administrative and municipalities reported that the provision of tools political hurdles and gain added importance in the and guidelines had inﬂuenced the municipal work arena of global climate governance (Toly 2008; on climate issues. According to several infor- Andonova et al. 2009). Just like the networks as mants, tools for calculating a city’s greenhouse consultants, the advocate role requires a certain gas emissions were particularly helpful. This ver- degree of infrastructure and formalisation. By tical transfer of information (network to member) assuming a mandate from their members networks requires a certain degree of formalisation of the challenge conventional ways of government and network in question. Networks have to have shape climate governance that takes place on sev- access to independent infrastructure to provide eral levels simultaneously (Bulkeley et al. 2003; these services. This role also marks the ascension Bulkeley & Betsill 2005; Davies 2005; Betsill & of networks from being a group of members that Kern & Bulkeley 2009). An exam- Bulkeley 2006; interact to constituting a separate (legal) entity. ple of this in Germany is the statement issued by Some networks take on the role of commitment Climate Alliance after its national conference in brokers. Networks with this function ask their November 2014. After a long discussion during members – usually upon joining – to commit to the conference on the course of the energy transi- certain goals with regard to climate change poli- tion in Germany, the delegates of member munici- cies. This requires some degree of formalisation of palities arrived at a common position. The the goals in the form of a resolution or declaration. resulting statement entails demands and sugges- Municipalities then have to report their own pro- tions for the reformation of the national legal gress to the network, which then communicates it framework on questions of energy. The statement to other members and/or the public. An example was then published by the network and distributed of this is the homepage of the Covenant of to relevant media outlets. Mayors, where everyone can ﬁnd a link to check These four functions are based on the activities the members’ progress in reaching their committed that networks undertake. Additional functions that goals. This creates an atmosphere of transparency members assign the networks have not been taken and accountability that helps to reduce the fear of into account for this article. Of these ‘place brand- free-riding behaviour (Fay 2007; Toly 2008). ing’, the ‘use of membership as an argument in Interviews with the former and current staff mem- local politics’ and ‘network activities as motiva- bers of networks conﬁrmed the importance of this tional factor for climate managers’ deserve further function. In local politics, the commitment made attention. However, these lay outside of the scope upon joining the network often played out as an of this article. Therefore, this list may not be International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 225 conclusive when looking at how cities make use of TMCNs on local governments in Ireland was lim- their membership. Furthermore, the boundaries ited (Davies 2005). Her main conclusion is that between the different functions are not necessarily this is due to the uncertainty about who is respon- clear-cut and, in particular, the two information- sible for addressing climate change and on what sharing functions (networks as platforms and net- scale interventions should be made. Zeppel found works as consultants) may go hand in hand, as that the CCP provides a number of beneﬁts to networks rely on the achievements of their mem- local governments: ‘GHG reductions, ﬁnancial bers when designing policy recommendations for savings, greater awareness of climate change in other members. However, the four functions that councils and communities, local leadership and emerged from the analysis can serve as a helpful integrated programmes on climate change with heuristic when analysing network activities. All 9 key stakeholders and a network of CCP councils’ TMCNs that were considered in this article were (Zeppel 2013a, p. 223). Based on these beneﬁts investigated on the basis of their functions. All the CCP has ‘played a signiﬁcant role in urban networks’ functions have been classiﬁed according climate programmes’ (Zeppel 2013a, p. 226). For to the degree of their involvement. The tree clas- the Australian context, she found that CCP had siﬁcations are low, medium and high. The criteria been adopted by 238 local councils (Zeppel 2012). for assigning the classiﬁcations, as well as an A survey among councils in Queensland, overview of the networks’ performance in the Australia, established that 50% (16 out of 32 function, can be found in Table 2. responding councils) had joined CCP. It was This categorisation has shown that networks found that CCP contributed to a minor degree to can fulﬁl more than one function simultaneously. emission reductions by means of climate certiﬁca- The observed functional diversity may be a sign of tion (Zeppel 2013b). a multitude of inﬂuences that networks may have The literature analysis yielded only one inves- on several levels of climate governance. Through tigation (published in two formats: a master thesis the combination of different functions, networks 2011 and a peer-reviewed article in 2014) that in develop different proﬁles. Consequently, the speciﬁcally focussed on the impact of TMCNs in impact may differ from network to network. It Germany. In this study, Hakelberg investigates the also means that municipalities can chose between impact of TMCNs on the local level (Hakelberg different proﬁles of networks. A choice between 2011, 2014). He limits his investigation to members different proﬁles enables the municipalities to join of the Cities for Climate Protection Programme, a network that addresses their own particular Climate Alliance, Energy Cities and C40. His needs more accurately, thereby enhancing the main ﬁnding is that membership of a TMCN sig- impact made by networks. niﬁcantly increases the likelihood that European municipalities will develop a climate strategy of their own and issue local climate policies. 5.4. Impacts – the literature on Germany However, he neglects the question of adaptation. Very few studies investigate cases of impact by While his quantitative data is rich, it focuses on TMCNs on their members. Bulkeley found that Europe, rather than Germany, as the unit of analy- the Cities for Climate Protection Programme sis. In the second half of his study, he investigates attracts networks mainly by offering ﬁnancial and two German cases qualitatively (Hannover and political resources and by conferring legitimacy Offenbach). His ﬁndings from these two cases indi- (Betsill & Bulkeley 2004). Kern and Bulkeley cate that TMCNs inﬂuence cities in that they serve suggested that municipalities engaged in these net- as a ‘key resource of knowledge and expertise’ for works are often pioneers that search for an city administrations. He points out that this is true exchange with other pioneers (Kern & Bulkeley for both the newcomer- (Offenbach) as well as the 2009). According to Davies, the impact of pioneer-city (Hannover). Despite the many hundred 226 H. Busch memberships no further studies were found that World Mayors Council on Climate Change. speciﬁcally investigate the impact of TMCNs on ICLEIisalsoconnectedto the C40Cities local climate governance in Germany. Climate Leadership Group. ICLEI’simportant position as the hub between different networks can be explained by ICLEI’sown proﬁle. 5.5. Institutional links between TMCNs Among other things that it does, ICLEI pro- Links between networks are widespread. Analysis motes urban development that brings about ‘sus- of material provided by the networks suggests that tainable, resilient (. . .) and low carbon’ (ICLEI) two main blocks of TMCNs have emerged: in one cities. ICLEI addressed issues that are related to block there is a stronger focus on mitigation, local responses to climate change while consti- whereas in the other it is on adaptation (see tuting a network that is concerned with a wider Table 1). The former comprises networks con- array of topics. nected to the Covenant of Mayors, which includes As shown, there are links between the different among its supporters several other networks, sub- networks, such as cities that are members of sev- networks and associations of local governments. eral networks or joint initiatives (e.g. Covenant of Among the group of networks that were investi- Mayors). The functioning and impact of single gated in this article Mayors Adapt, Energy Cities networks can only be fully understood if links and Climate Alliance deserves mention. The between networks are taken into consideration. Covenant appears to serve as a mitigation hub, Furthermore, the analysis found indicators of the so a point of intersection for mitigation networks. existence of two meta-networks that might serve All four networks – Climate Alliance, Energy as focal points for the networks’ efforts. It seems Cities, the Covenant of Mayors and Mayors that these meta-networks were set up to coordinate Adapt – share an address in Brussels and the networks’ activities and increase efﬁciency; how- Covenant of Mayors employs staff from the three ever, more research on this aspect of TMCNs is other networks (Climate Alliance 2013; Covenant needed. of Mayors 2013; Energy Cities 2013). This fact is less surprising when the historical development of 6. Conclusion the Covenant of Mayors is taken into considera- tion; while the institution was supported by the The literature on TMCNs argues that TMCNs are EU, Energy Cities and Climate Alliance played a important actors in global climate governance. major role in setting up the network. Today, both Scholars have further demonstrated that TMCNs Energy Cities and Climate Alliance provide links can affect all levels of the European multilevel to the homepage of the Covenant of Mayors on governance system, whilst comparatively little their home page. research has been conducted on the impact of A link between the networks focussing on TMCNs at local levels. TMCNs are widespread mitigation and those focussing on both mitiga- among German cities. However, nearly 25 years tion and adaptation is established through ICLEI after the ﬁrst TMCNs started their work in – Local Governments for Sustainability which Germany much is still unknown about their actual is, on the one hand on the list of Covenant impact on urban climate governance on the local supporters, while on the other hand ICLEI level. serves as a hub for adaptation networks. It is This article demonstrates the potential TMCNs the mother organisation for the Cities for have to exert considerable inﬂuence on urban cli- Climate Protection Programme which nowadays mate governance in Germany. It presents an ana- focuses on mitigation and adaptation alike. lysis of the proliferation and characteristics of Furthermore it supports the UNISDR Resilient TMCNs in Germany, provides a conceptual frame- City Network which is also supported by the work for locating TMCNs impacts at municipal International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 227 level and identiﬁes knowledge gaps that need central role for this function. While the Covenant further investigation. of Mayors manages an own reporting system other The results show that the TMCNs active in networks such as the World Mayors Council rely Germany have different proﬁles, which are shaped on the members willingness to join the Carbonn not only by their varying emphasis on mitigation Climate Registry. The commitment broker func- and adaptation but also by the degree to which tion does not per se enable municipalities to imple- they assume different functions: ment more ambitious climate policies. It however The networks as platforms function describes can help facilitate decision making processes in the scope that networks offer their members to local politics. By placing a municipality’s efforts communicate their climate policies. This function into the narrative of a broad climate movement, is ﬁrst and foremost related to learning processes ambitious goals can more easily be argued for. between municipalities. Most networks afford The function of networks as city advocate is their members opportunities to present their poli- assumed by the networks in different degrees. The cies to each other (see Table 2). This exchange of Covenant of Mayors and Future Cities don’t take ideas can foster the proliferation of new and inno- it up at all. While Future Cities seems to lack the vative practices of local climate governance. capacity to engage in lobbying activities in the Learning from other cities might not only enable ﬁrst place, the Covenant of Mayors has no need local administrations to see what is possible but to fulﬁl this role. As a network that emerged from also how ambitious goals can be achieved. Thus, the cooperation between Energy Cities and the platform function widens the scope of avail- Climate Alliance it can simply rely on their efforts able climate options for network members. The in this ﬁeld. Other networks, such as Climate material compiled for this study indicates that Alliance, actively assume this function, e.g. by cities making use of this function are not moti- their attendance at the COP 19 negotiations in vated solely by altruistic considerations. However, Warsaw, 2013. While these efforts do not directly the boundary between sincere knowledge-sharing affect the member cities it aims at improving the and place-branding activities is less clear-cut than political environment and legal frame in which one might wish. local governments take their decision. Just as All the networks investigated provide some with the consultant function, the city advocate kind of consultancy services to their members role requires networks to set up the necessary (see Table 2). The degree of activity differs and infrastructure to coordinate and implement their depends, among other things, on the infrastructure efforts. that the network in question commands. However, Based on the differences in the networks’ pro- the provision of services by networks does not ﬁles it is to be expected that the potential impact automatically lead to an implementation of mea- the networks have on their members differs from sures in municipalities. Only networks that have network to network. This assumption is conﬁrmed some form of institutionalised infrastructure can by the fact that the responsibility for the network provide more sophisticated forms of this function. membership in bigger cities with more than one Nonetheless, the existence of numerous tool, membership is often dispersed over several depart- guides and other consultancy services greatly ments within the same city administration. The increase the scope of local climate policies. wide proliferation as well as the wide range of As commitment broker networks help their potential beneﬁts that are provided through the members to live up to the voluntary commitments different functions are indications of the impact that they make when embarking on membership. of the TMCNs on urban climate governance in Some networks do not provide this function at all. Germany. However, more research – quantitative The Covenant of Mayors has proved to be the and qualitative – is needed to conﬁrm the hypoth- most active in this ﬁeld. Carbon registries play a esis of the networks’ impact that has been derived 228 H. Busch from this analysis. Future research should be climate change adaptation policies is needed. It directed at the following four research gaps iden- would be interesting to see how the four network tiﬁed in this article: functions that were identiﬁed for this article man- ifest in the context of adaptation. Especially, the commitment broker function needs to be reworked 6.1. De facto impact for the adaptation activities of networks. Very few case studies investigate the actual impact of TMCNs at the municipal level (e.g. Davies 6.3. Conceptual framework 2005; Hakelberg 2014). This is partly because most publications on this topic are in the ﬁeld of A satisfying comprehensive categorisation of political science. The strong inﬂuence of scholars TMCNs that can be used as a starting point to from international relations has directed the focus assess the networks’ impact has yet to be made. towards the impact TMCNs have on higher levels Keiner and Kim (Keiner & Kim 2007) attempted of governance (e.g. national and EU level). to do so, but because it applies too broad a deﬁni- Further in-depth investigations of how TMCNs’ tion of transnational networks and includes too inﬂuence the local level could produce the relevant many characteristics their analysis lacks strin- and interesting insights that are necessary for a gency. The categorisation by Andonova et al. more comprehensive understanding of the impact (Andonova et al. 2009) served as a starting point of TMCNs. Further research should address this for this study. However, their analysis includes all research gap by conducting case studies of TMCN networks that were set up in response to climate member cities and their climate policies in con- change and not only municipal ones. Furthermore, nection with their membership. Further quantita- their functional categories only partly reﬂect the tive data on German member cities would shed municipal perspective. This present article there- light on this issue. I suggest a survey with either fore presented a categorisation based on the net- all German municipalities or a share of them in works’ activities that can be used as a basis for case ﬁndings are supposed to be limited to a further investigating TMCN impact. However, speciﬁc group within the population (e.g. cities further empirical work is needed to conﬁrm the above 100,000 inhabitants). functions presented in this article. 6.2. Mitigation and adaptation 6.4. Meta networks All studies on TMCNs so far focus on the impact A ﬁnal ﬁnding is that cooperation between net- these networks have on the governance of climate works is widespread. Networks cooperate in single change mitigation. However, recently many of the projects, share infrastructure and staff or set up networks have adopted some kind of climate new networks together as in the case of the change adaptation component. Even if networks Covenant of Mayors. Just like climate change such as the Cities for Climate Protection adaptation, this aspect of TMCNs seems not to Programme or Climate Alliance were initially net- have made it onto the agenda of researchers in works focussing solely on mitigation, climate this ﬁeld and should thus be further researched change adaptation has become an important part since the networks’ impact can only be assessed of their portfolio. In March 2014 Mayors Adapt if synergies between them are taken into account. I was launched, to act as an adaptation counterpart suggest two different approaches to this topic. of the Covenant of Mayors, bearing further testi- First, future research should attempt to unveil mony to this development. These current develop- how cooperation between networks takes place ments underline the timeliness of the issue. More on the network level. Staff of cooperating knowledge on how TMCNs inﬂuence local TMCNs should be interviewed to learn more International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 229 about inter-network cooperation. Events such as change? Clim Change. 93:335–354. doi:10.1007/ s10584-008-9520-z shared conferences can be a further source of Anderberg S, Clark E. 2012. The green and sustainable information. Second, when assessing the actual Øresund region: eco-branding Copenhagen and impact of networks on the municipal level through Malmö. In: Vojnovic I, editor. Sustain a glob urban case studies special attention should be paid to context. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. how cities perceive different networks and net- Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H. 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob Environ work cooperation. It would be interesting to Polit [Internet];9:52–73. Available from: http:// know if membership in one network increases www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/glep. the likelihood of a city to join a second one. 2009.9.2.52 Betsill M, Bulkeley H. 2004. Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q Disclosure statement [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 3];471–493. Available No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j. author. 0020-8833.2004.00310.x/full Betsill M, Bulkeley H. 2006. Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov Funding [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 29]; 12:141–159, This research was supported by the Linneus Centre Available from: http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/ LUCID (Lund University Centre of Excellence for the 10.5555/ggov.2006.12.2.141 Integration of Social and Natural Dimensions of Betsill MM. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US Sustainability) funded by the Swedish Research cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environ. Council Formas [grant number 259-2008-1718]. No 6:393–406. doi:10.1080/13549830120091699 further funding has been received. Bouteligier S. 2013. Cities, networks, and global envir- onmental governance: spaces of innovation, places of leadership. Abingdon: Routledge. Bulkeley H. 2010. Cities and the governing of climate Note change. Annu Rev Environ Resour [Internet]. [cited 1. 21st International Annual Conference of Climate 2014 Jan 21];35:229–253, Available from: http:// Alliance in The Hague, May 2013 and 2014. www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- Kommunale Klimaschutz-Konferenz in Lübeck, environ-072809-101747 November 2014. Bulkeley H. 2013. Cities and climate change. London: Routledge. Bulkeley H, Betsill M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the “Urban” poli- Notes on contributor tics of climate change. Env Polit [Internet]. [cited Henner Busch is a doctoral candidate in Sustainability 2013 Nov 7];14:42–63. Available from: http://www. Science at Lund University Centre for Sustainability tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0964401042000 Studies (LUCSUS) and Lund University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Social and Natural Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V, Hodson M, Marvin S. 2013. Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID) in Sweden. He Introduction. In: Bulkeley H, Castán BV, Hodson M, mainly works on local responses to climate change and Marvin S, editors. Cities low carbon transitions. renewable energy. Milton Park: Routledge, Revised pa; p. 1–10. Bulkeley H, Davies A, Evans B, Gibbs D, Kern K, ORCID Theobald K. 2003. Environmental governance and transnational municipal networks in Europe. J Henner Busch http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0468-2155 Environ Policy Plan [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20];5:235–254. Available from: http://www.tandfon line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1523908032000154179 References Climate Alliance. 2005. Adaptation and Mitigation – an Integrated Climate Policy Approach [Internet]. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www. I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate amica-climate.net/home1.html 230 H. Busch Climate Alliance. 2012. Cliamte Scout [Internet]. [cited Hakelberg L. 2014. Governance by diffusion: transna- 2013 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.klimasc tional municipal networks and the spread of local out.de/ climate strategies in Europe. Glob Environ Polit. Climate Alliance. 2013. Climate Alliance ofﬁce in 14:107–129. Brussels [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available ICLEI. Homepage [Internet]. [cited 2013a Dec 20]. from: http://www.klimabuendnis.org/brussels- Available from: http://www.iclei.org/ ofﬁce0.html#c2716 ICLEI. ICLEI – who we are [Internet]. [cited 2013b Dec Covenant of Mayors. 2013. Contact page of the 20]. Available from: http://www.iclei.org/iclei-glo Covenant of Mayors [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec bal/who-is-iclei.html 20]. Available from: http://www.eumayors.eu/ IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: an assessment of the about/contact_en.html intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Curtis S. 2010. Global cities and the transformation of Pachauri RK, Reisinger A, editors. Climate change, the international system. Rev Int Stud [Internet]. Vol. 446; [Internet]. Geneva: IPCC; p. 12–17. [cited 2014 Aug 28];37:1923–1947. Available Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_ report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf S0260210510001099 Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Davies A. 2005. Local action for climate change: trans- Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, national networks and the Irish experience. Local Lövbrand E, Persson J. 2010. Structuring sustain- Environ [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 18];10:21–40, ability science. Sustain Sci [Internet]. [cited 2011 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Aug 22];6:69–82, Available from: http://www. 1354983042000309298 springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x Dinnie K, editor. 2010. City branding – theory and Kamal-Chaoui L, Roberts A 2009. Competitive cities cases. Place unknown: Palgrave Macmillan. and climate change – OECD Regional Development Dodman D. 2009. Blaming cities for climate change? Working Paper [Internet]. Paris; [cited 2013 Sep An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions 19]. Available from: http://www1.oecd.org/govern inventories. Environ Urban [Internet]. [cited 2013 ance/regional-policy/44232251.pdf Sep 18];21:185–201. Available from: http://eau.sage Keiner M, Kim A. 2007. Transnational city networks for pub.com/content/21/1/185.short sustainability. Eur Plan Stud [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep Energy Cities. 2013. Come and meet us – contact page 4];15:1369–1395, Available from: http://www.tandfon of Energy Cities [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20]. line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654310701550843 Available from: http://www.energy-cities.eu/ Kern K, Bulkeley H. 2009. Cities, Europeanization and Privacy multi-level governance: governing climate change Fay C. 2007. Think locally, act globally: lessons to learn through transnational municipal networks. JCMS J from the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. Common Mark Stud [Internet]; 47:309–332. Innov J Polit [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 5];7:1–12, Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j. Available from: http://www.calgaryurbancampus. 1468-5965.2009.00806.x ucalgary.ca/innovations/ﬁles/innovations/Fay- Khagram S, Nicholas KA, Bever DM, Warren J, ThinkLocally.pdf Richards EH, Oleson K, Kitzes J, Katz R, Hwang Forsee W, Ahmad S. 2011. Evaluating urban storm-water R, Goldman R. et al. 2010. Thinking about know- infrastructure design in response to projected climate ing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary change. J Hydrol Eng [Internet]. [cited 2013 environmental research. Environ Conserv Oct 30];865–873. Available from: http://ascelibrary. [Internet]. [cited 2011 Aug 28];37:388–397. org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000383 Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/ Hajer MA, Wagenaar H, Goodin RE, Barry B, Hardin abstract_S0376892910000809 R, Pateman C, Weingast B, Elkin S. 2003. Klijn E-H, Skelcher C. 2007. Democracy and govern- Deliberative policy analysis: understanding govern- ance networks: compatible or not? Public Adm ance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge [Internet];85:587–608. Available from: http://doi. University Press. wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x Hakelberg L. 2011. Governing climate change by diffu- Kronsell A. 2013. Legitimacy for climate policies: pol- sion [Internet]. 1st ed. Berlin: Freie Universität itics and participation in the Green City of Freiburg. Berlin, Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik. Local Environ [Internet];18:965–982. Available Available from: http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/serv from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ lets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDOCS_derivate_ 13549839.2012.748732 000000001736/Hakelberg_ffu_report_08-2011.pdf? Lindseth G. 2004. The Cities for Climate Protection hosts= Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 231 policy. Local Environ [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov UNISDR. 2012. Making cities resilient: my city is getting 5];9:325–336. Available from:,http://www.tandfon ready [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 7]. Available from: line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1354983042000246252 http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/ Lowndes V. 2001. Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institu- United Nations. 2013. Millennium development tional theory seriously in urban politics. Urban Stud goals indicators – carbon dioxide emissions. [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 21];38:1953–1971. New York (NY): United Nations. Available from: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/38/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 11/1953.short Change. 2013. Report of the Conference of the Maria V, Rahman M, Collins P. 2013. Urban Heat Island Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw Effect: thermal response from different types of from 11 to 23 November 2013 [Internet]. [cited exposed paved surfaces. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2014 Jan 31]. Warsaw. Available from: http:// [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 18];6:414–422. Available unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf from: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1259488 Wamsler C. 2014. Cities, disaster risk and adaptation. Moses J, Knutsen T. 2007. Ways of knowing: competing 1st ed. London: Routledge. methodologies in social and political research. New Wamsler C, Brink E, Rivera C. 2013. Planning York: Palgrave McMillan. for climate change in urban areas: from theory Pielke R, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D. 2007. Climate to practice. J Clean Prod [Internet]. [cited change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 2013 Dec 12];50:68–81. Available from: http://lin [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 6];445:597–598. kinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095965261200 Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/jour 652X nal/v445/n7128/abs/445597a.html Wilbanks TJ, Kane SM, Leiby PN, Perlack RD, Settle Risse-Kappen T. 1995. Bringing transnational relations C, Shogren JF, Smith JB. 2003. Possible responses back in. New York: Cambridge University Press. to global climate change: integrating mitigation and Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Hammer SA, Mehrotra S. adaptation. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 2010. Cities lead the way in climate-change action. [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jan 31];45:28–38. Available Nature. 467:909–911. from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ Satterthwaite D. 2008. Cities’ contribution to global warm- 00139150309604547 ing: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emis- Zeppel H. 2012. Governing carbon mitigation and cli- sions. Environ Urban [Internet]. [cited 2013 Mar mate change within local councils: a case study of 19];20:539–549, Available from: http://eau.sagepub. Adelaide, South Australia. Commonw J Local Gov com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247808096127 [Internet]. [cited 2014 Oct 2];70–85. Available Toly NJ. 2008. Transnational municipal networks in from: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. climate politics: from global governance to global php/cjlg/article/view/2690 politics. Globalizations [Internet]. [cited 2013 Zeppel H. 2013a. The ICLEI cities for climate protec- Sep 2];5:341–356, Available from: http://www.tand tion program: local government networks for urban fonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747730802252479 climate governance. In: Cadman T, editor. Climate Tompkins EL, Eakin H. 2012. Managing private and change and global policy regimes: towards institu- public adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ tional legitimacy [Internet]. Place unknown: Chang [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jan 25];22:3–11, Palgrave Macmillan; [cited 2014 Sep 18];p. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ 217–231. Available from: http://www.palgravecon retrieve/pii/S0959378011001452 nect.com/doiﬁnder/10.1057/9781137006127 UN-Habitat. 2011. Cities and climate change – Global Report Zeppel H. 2013b. Carbon management by Queensland on Human Settlements 2011. London: UN-Habitat. local councils. J Corp Citizsh. 2013:117–136. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/linked-for-action-an-analysis-of-transnational-municipal-climate-PvgTIT7hQE

Loading next page...

References (55)

H. Bulkeley, M. Betsill (2005)
Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the 'Urban' Politics of Climate Change
Environmental Politics, 14
Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session
S. Bouteligier (2012)
Cities, Networks, and Global Environmental Governance: Spaces of Innovation, Places of Leadership
J. Moses, T. Knutsen (2007)
Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research
C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, S. Hammer, S. Mehrotra (2010)
Cities lead the way in climate–change action
Nature, 467
(2012)
The green and sustainable
Come and meet us -contact page of Energy Cities
(2012)
Cliamte Scout [Internet
Lukas Hakelberg (2014)
Governance by Diffusion: Transnational Municipal Networks and the Spread of Local Climate Strategies in Europe
Global Environmental Politics, 14
G. Lindseth (2004)
The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of Local Climate Policy
Local Environment, 9
M. Betsill (2001)
Mitigating Climate Change in US Cities: Opportunities and obstacles
Local Environment, 6
Liliana Andonova, M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley (2009)
Transnational Climate Governance
Global Environmental Politics, 9
H. Zeppel (2012)
Governing Carbon Mitigation and Climate Change within Local Councils: A Case Study of Adelaide, South Australia
Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance
M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley (2006)
Cities and the Multilevel Governance of Global Climate Change
Understanding Global Cooperation
W. Adger, S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D. Nelson, L. Naess, J. Wolf, A. Wreford (2009)
Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?
Climatic Change, 93
(2011)
Evaluating urban storm-water infrastructure design in response to projected climate change
(2012)
Millennium development goals indicators -carbon dioxide emissions
H. Zeppel (2013)
The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection programme: local government networks in urban climate governance
E. Klijn, C. Skelcher (2007)
Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not?
Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
Vivien Lowndes (2001)
Rescuing Aunt Sally: Taking Institutional Theory Seriously in Urban Politics
Urban Studies, 38
Lukas Hakelberg (2011)
Governing climate change by diffusion
W. Forsee, Sajjad Ahmad (2011)
Glacier Variability in the Wind River Range, Wyoming
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16
M. Keiner, Arley Kim (2007)
Transnational City Networks for Sustainability
European Planning Studies, 15
Noah Toly (2008)
Transnational Municipal Networks in Climate Politics: From Global Governance to Global Politics
Globalizations, 5
M. Betsill, H. Bulkeley (2004)
Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance: The Cities for Climate Protection Program
International Studies Quarterly, 48
F. Butera (2008)
Cities and climate change
H. Bulkeley (2010)
Cities and the Governing of Climate Change
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35
Anne Jerneck, Lennart Olsson, B. Ness, S. Anderberg, Matthias Baier, E. Clark, T. Hickler, Alf Hornborg, Annica Kronsell, Eva Lövbrand, J. Persson (2011)
Structuring sustainability science
Sustainability Science, 6
E. Tompkins, H. Eakin (2012)
Managing private and public adaptation to climate change
Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions, 22
(1995)
Bringing transnational relations back in
H. Bulkeley, Anna Davies, B. Evans, D. Gibbs, K. Kern, K. Theobald (2003)
Environmental Governance and Transnational Municipal Networks in Europe
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5
(2012)
Climate Alliance office in Brussels
(2009)
Competitive cities and climate change -OECD Regional Development Working Paper
K. Dinnie (2010)
City Branding: Theory and Cases
T. Wilbanks, S. Kane, P. Leiby, R. Perlack, Chad Settle, J. Shogren, Joel Smith (2003)
Possible Responses to Global Climate Change: Integrating Mitigation and Adaptation
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 45
C. Wamsler, Ebba Brink, C. Rivera (2013)
Planning for climate change in urban areas: from theory to practice
Journal of Cleaner Production, 50
Annica Kronsell (2013)
Legitimacy for climate policies: politics and participation in the Green City of Freiburg
Local Environment, 18
S. Curtis (2010)
Global cities and the transformation of the International System
Review of International Studies, 37
H. Bulkeley, K. Kern (2009)
Cities, Europeanization and Multi-Level Governance: Governing Climate Change Through Transnational Municipal Networks
Economics of Networks
(2007)
Climate change 2007: an assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
S. Alam (1993)
Framework Convention on Climate Change
R. Pielke, G. Prins, S. Rayner, D. Sarewitz (2007)
Climate change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation
Nature, 445
(2005)
Adaptation and Mitigation -an Integrated Climate Policy Approach
D. Satterthwaite (2008)
Cities' contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions
Environment & Urbanization, 20
David Thacher (2005)
Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24
Nathalie Ortar (2011)
Cities and climate change: Global report on human settlements 2011
Contact page of the Covenant of Mayors
(2013)
Cities low carbon transitions
Anna Davies (2005)
Local action for climate change: transnational networks and the Irish experience
Local Environment, 10
Sanjeev Khagram, K. Nicholas, Dena Bever, Justin Warren, E. Richards, K. Oleson, J. Kitzes, R. Katz, Rebeca Hwang, R. Goldman, Jason Funk, K. Brauman (2010)
Thinking about knowing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research
Environmental Conservation, 37
V. Maria, M. Rahman, P. Collins, G. Dondi, C. Sangiorgi (2013)
Urban Heat Island Effect: thermal response from different types of exposed paved surfaces
International journal of pavement research and technology, 6
H. Zeppel (2013)
Carbon management by Queensland local councils
H. Zeppel (2013)
The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Programme
C. Wamsler (2013)
Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation
D. Dodman (2009)
Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories
Environment & Urbanization, 21

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: © 2015 Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 1946-3146
eISSN: 1946-3138
DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2015.1057144
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 2015 Vol. 7, No. 2, 213–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2015.1057144 Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany Henner Busch * Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS) & Lund University Centre of Excellence for the Integration of Social and Natural Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID), Lund, Sweden (Received 14 November 2014; accepted 26 May 2015) In times of ongoing urbanisation and unabated climate change, cities face increasing demands for improvements in urban climate change governance. This article investigates the activities of transnational municipal networks that were set up in response to climate change and analyses their potential to inﬂuence local climate governance. On the basis of a conceptualisation of transnational municipal climate networks (TMCNs), quantitative data on the proliferation of TMCNs amongst German municipalities were assessed and complemented by a qualitative analysis of scientiﬁc and grey literature and interviews. The quanti- tative analysis reveals a wide proliferation of TMCNs in Germany. Finally, the results show that TMCNs have different proﬁles which can be categorised into four functions all of which might inﬂuence local climate change governance. The functions are ‘platform’, ‘consultant’, ‘commitment broker’ and ‘advo- cate’. It is concluded that TMCNs can play a crucial role in fostering climate governance. Keywords: transnational municipal networks; climate governance; Germany; climate change; urban transformation 1. Introduction example, heat waves will have a bigger impact on urban areas due to the heat-island effect (Maria The great importance of cities in the context of et al. 2013). The same goes for ﬂooding, as the climate change has been recognised by both acade- large areas of infrastructure and buildings seal sur- mia and international organisations (Betsill 2001; faces against storm water inﬁltration (Forsee & Kern & Bulkeley 2009;Rosenzweigetal. 2010; Ahmad 2011). The high density of population and UN-Habitat 2011;Kronsell 2013). Cities are cultural and economic values can, amongst other expected to play a major role in relation to climate things, make the impacts of climate change in cities change mitigation and adaptation. This central more severe than in rural settings (Wamsler et al. role is reﬂected in the decisions taken by the last 2013; Wamsler 2014). Despite the fact that per- Conference of the Parties of the United capita greenhouse gas emissions from urban areas Nations framework convention on climate change are often overestimated (Satterthwaite 2008; (UNFCCC) in Warsaw (United Nations Framework Dodman 2009), cities still constitute leverage points Convention on Climate Change 2013, see 5b). for climate change mitigation (Rosenzweig et al. Cities are challenged in different ways with regard 2010;UN-Habitat 2011; Bulkeley 2013;Bulkeley to adaptation. They are vulnerable to climate et al. 2013). The high concentration of infrastruc- change as some of the expected effects will impact ture and the extent of resource ﬂows in cities allow cities proportionately harder than rural areas. For *Email: Henner.busch@lucsus.lu.se © 2015 Taylor & Francis 214 H. Busch for economies of scale to occur if the urban system stated that TMNs ‘are still understudied’ is subject to transformation (Kamal-Chaoui & (Bouteligier 2013, p. 3). Roberts 2009). Consequently, cities will be dispro- Many German municipalities are members of portionally challenged by climate change adapta- TMCNs. Germany is the country with the largest tion and mitigation needs. However, cities also population in the EU and is also the EU’s biggest have great potential to meet these challenges. As economy and emitter of green-house gases local governments, they hold for instance ‘consider- (GHGs) (United Nations 2013). At the same able authority over land use planning and waste time, Germany was able to make considerable management and can play an important role in cuts in emissions of GHGs compared with 1990 dealing with transportation issues and energy con- levels (United Nations 2013). Municipal networks sumption’ (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006, p.141). Either for sustainability in general, and in response to way, cities will play a major role in ﬁnding answers climate change in particular, have a long-standing to the challenges posed by climate change. history in Germany. Both International Council for Despite the immense magnitude of the pro- Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local blem climate change has not sufﬁciently made it Governments for Sustainability as well as Climate onto the agenda of all cities world-wide. Bulkeley Alliance have their headquarters in Germany, with pointed out that ‘for the vast majority of the Climate Alliance having been founded in world’s cities, climate change is far from being a Frankfurt am Main in 1990. signiﬁcant issue’ (Bulkeley 2013, p.104). This Despite the comparatively great attention cli- leads to a situation where climate change is ‘un- mate issues receive at different levels of society, governed’ in the urban context (Bulkeley 2013). the success of Germany in cutting emissions and Consequently, improved urban governance in the widespread membership of TMCNs, no sys- response to climate change is needed. tematic investigation of the impact of these net- Several transnational municipal networks works in Germany has yet been conducted. This (TMNs) that address sustainability challenges research gap makes Germany an important case have emerged in the last few decades. This article study. This article aims at providing the ﬁrst steps focuses exclusively on those TMNs with a clear for addressing this research gap. climate focus. They will be referred to as transna- tional municipal climate networks (TMCNs). The 2. Research questions two largest networks in terms of members are Climate Alliance and the Covenant of Mayors, This article is part of a larger study which aims to which unite several thousand European municipa- increase knowledge and understanding of the role lities in their efforts against climate change. The of TMCNs for urban responses to climate change importance of these networks on local climate in Germany. The main research question answered governance has been highlighted by a small num- in this article is: What potential inﬂuence do ber of scientiﬁc studies which found that TMCNs TMCNs have in Germany when it comes to have the capacity to spread climate change poli- responses to climate change in urban areas? cies amongst their members and thus contribute to Here, inﬂuence is widely deﬁned as modifying the reduction of emissions (e.g. Davies 2005; municipalities’ scope of action for their climate Hakelberg 2011, 2014; Zeppel 2013a). It is how- policies. This can happen by providing access to ever primarily the impact of TMCNs on higher new knowledge, by creating a favourable environ- levels of governance such as national governments ment for local climate policies or by simply or European Union (EU) administration that has increasing the perceived effectiveness of these been in focus in the past research (Bulkeley et al. policies. 2003; Keiner & Kim 2007; Toly 2008; Kern & The following sub-research questions contri- Bulkeley 2009). Not surprisingly, Bouteligier bute to assessing the potential impact: International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 215 (1) What is the degree of proliferation of sustainable urban development. ‘TMNs (. . .) are TMCNs in Germany? networks of municipalities which operate nation- (2) How are the TMCNs linked to mitigation ally and transnationally, so that TMNs represent and adaptation, respectively? and involve cities directly in policy issues at the (3) What kind of functions do TMCNs pro- international and European levels, and across vide to municipalities, and how can these national borders’ (p. 236). While this deﬁnition be categorised with respect to climate helps to give an initial idea of TMNs, it is still change governance? very broad and, for example, does not answer (4) What impacts of TMNs on local climate questions about the degree of integration of governance did earlier studies ﬁnd for TMNs. An institutionally even broader deﬁnition Germany? of TMCNs is presented by Keiner and Kim (5) How are TMCNs linked to each other (Keiner & Kim 2007); according to them the institutionally? term encompasses short-term cooperation between two cities (as long as these cities are located in A more detailed review of the literature relevant different countries) or climate competition for each of the research questions can be found in between European municipalities. Kern and Section 5 of this article. Bulkeley listed three characteristics for TMCNs that can serve as more focussed deﬁnitions (Kern & Bulkeley 2009). These characteristics are (a) 3. Theoretical background: transnational voluntary membership, (b) networks appear to be municipal climate networks ‘non-hierarchical, horizontal and polycentric’ and Governance research has addressed networks since thus they constitute a form of self-governance and the late 1990s. Two approaches to networks have (c) in contrast to conventional non-governmental emerged (Klijn & Skelcher 2007). According to organizations (NGOs) the networks do not exclu- the ﬁrst approach, networks constitute arenas of sively focus on lobbying and mobilisation but the policy making where different stakeholders can de facto implementation of measures through the come together and partake in political processes members (309 f). outside the restraining procedures of representative Summarising Kern and Bulkeley, I see democracy. Here, networks are understood as the TMCNs as institutionalised spaces where local horizontal dependencies between actors (Hajer governments from different countries come et al. 2003). The second approach takes a more together as equitable partners in an exchange on critical stance on governance and networks. In this climate change related issues. Furthermore, the approach, networks are understood as centres of investigated TMCNs have to fulﬁl a speciﬁc set power in which actors with particular private inter- of criteria. First, networks must of course be trans- est can take advantage of structural conditions to national. This does not necessarily mean global steer policy processes (Lowndes 2001). Both but networks have to operate in more than one approaches share the assumption that the actors country. Second, networks must have members in within the networks are different with regard to Germany in order to meet the geographical focus their legal status as well as by the power they hold. chosen for this article. Networks must have a Although the local governments within TMCNs certain level of formality with regard to member- differ in size and inﬂuence they do not constitute ship. This means that members gain certain rights entities from different spheres and all are public upon joining the networks. This could be access to actors involved in local policies. Therefore, a more material provided by the network or invitations to nuanced deﬁnition is needed for this article. annual network meetings. Loose cooperation or Bulkeley et al. (Bulkeley et al. 2003) provided conferences are not considered. Additionally, net- a basic deﬁnition of TMNs in the context of works must have more than two members and be 216 H. Busch currently active. These criteria were applied to selection of TMCNs for this article that at ﬁrst adjust the scope to a manageable level while not sight might seem to be arbitrary. losing the focus as deﬁned by the research ques- A further reﬁnement of the concept of TMNs tions above. is related to the question of whether these net- The networks that explicitly address climate works constitute agents or if they only act change include those that were explicitly set up through the agency of their members. For this with reference to climate change and those that research, it is assumed that the investigated address climate change-induced disasters. TMCNs are indeed agents – despite the fact Networks with broader, more abstract objectives that their authority and legitimacy derive from – such as sustainable urban development (ICLEI, their members. There are three reasons that jus- EuroCities) – and networks that address climate tify assigning agency to the TMCNs in question. change as a side aspect of other issues were First, each network is more than the sum of its excluded. The term ‘transnational’ is used in dif- parts or members; otherwise there is no initial ferent ways in the body of the scientiﬁc literature motivation to study the networks. Second, the on TMNs. Most of the publications on this issue role networks play in global environmental gov- come from the political sciences and from ernance (e.g. UNFCCC negotiations) has been researchers who work in international relations. acknowledged by many scholars (Bulkeley et al. The main difference in various deﬁnitions is 2003; Betsill & Bulkeley 2004, 2006; Andonova whether the inclusion of private actors is a neces- et al. 2009; Bouteligier 2013). Lindseth framed sary precondition for governance to be transna- the Cities for Climate Protection Programme as tional. Andonova et al. argued that this is the ‘an actor trying to mobilise and persuade cities to case (Andonova et al. 2009) whereas Risse- work on climate protection’ (Lindseth 2004, Kappen, for example, wrote only about ‘non- p. 326). Lastly, the networks investigated for this article all command at least a basic infra- state agents’ (Risse-Kappen 1995). Private actors can become members (often observer status or structure with ofﬁces and staff. comparable) in several of the networks investi- The review of the literature on TMCNs above gated; however in this article, their presence is showed that the topic has mostly been addressed not considered a precondition for constituting by scholars from the political sciences and in transnationality. particular by scholars in international relations. The boundaries between different types of net- Consequently, many of the publications focus on works are often not clear-cut (Keiner & Kim the impact TMCNs have on global environmental 2007). Institutions that have a name including the governance (Bulkeley et al. 2003;Betsill & term ‘campaign’ might have much clearer resem- Bulkeley 2004;Toly 2008; e.g. Andonova et al. blance to the above deﬁnition of TMCNs than 2009;Curtis 2010). Many researchers underline other networks that include the term ‘network’ in the importance of the multilevel perspective their name. The former ‘Cities for Climate when analysing the impact TMNs have on Protection Campaign’, now ‘Cities for Climate (European) governance, thus hinting at the sev- Protection Programme’ (CCP), could be seen as eral roles TMCNs play simultaneously by (poten- an example of this phenomenon. CCP ‘only’ is tially) inﬂuencing local, regional, national, EU labelled as a ‘programme’ run by a TMN that does and even global governance of climate change not explicitly focus on climate change (ICLEI). (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006;Fay 2007). What all However, CCP meets all the requirements for the former studies have in common is the focus inclusion in this research. Further examples of on issues of climate change mitigation, be it the absence of clear-cut boundaries between net- through the proﬁle of networks that were inves- work categories follow in the analysis section of tigated or through a focus on mitigation policies this article. This labelling issue results in a by the researchers. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 217 4. Methodology encountered when the data for the quantitative analysis were compiled and (c) to help with devel- This case study builds on different data collection opment of the conceptual framework on network methods. First, a literature review of the relevant functions. articles on TMCNs was conducted to gain an All German municipalities that are members of overview of the current research on this issue. TMCNs were considered, but for the qualitative The Scientiﬁc literature from the last decade was analysis special focus lies on the membership of taken into consideration to reﬂect the ongoing German larger cities (ger. Großstadt >100,000 changes in the TMCN landscape and to reduce inhabitants). By focusing on Germany, a case-spe- the amount of literature to a manageable level. ciﬁc bias is created and it will only partly be The articles were identiﬁed through search in possible to generalise ﬁndings from this investiga- Google scholar and the author’s home university tion to a wider international context. literature search engine. Search terms for whole article search were ‘transnational municipal net- work(s)’, ‘city network(s)’, ‘climate network(s)’, 5. Results and discussion ‘municipal network(s)’, ‘municipal climate net- work(s)’ and the respective German translations. The answers to each of the sub-research questions Furthermore, snowball sampling was applied start- provide indications that help to address the main ing from the bibliographies of articles and books research question. To link the many different indi- that were identiﬁed through Google scholar and cations to the main objective of this article, in this LibHub. Furthermore, the publication lists of key section the discussion of each of the ﬁndings fol- authors that have published in this ﬁeld were lows immediately after the presentation of the related results. scanned for further results. During the literature review, special attention was paid to how the focus of research has developed over time. Second, a database of TMCNs active in 5.1. TMCNs in Germany Germany was compiled. Based on the ﬁrst data- Eight relevant networks have been identiﬁed. An base, a second database listing all memberships of overview of size and focus of the networks can be German municipalities with these networks was found in Table 1. These networks differ greatly in created. These two databases served as a basis the overall size and proliferation in Germany. It for the quantitative analysis of TMCNs’ activities should be noted that the number of German mem- in Germany. On the basis of the literature review berships is not necessarily proportionate to the and the quantitative analysis of the databases, networks’ overall size internationally. Further dif- relevant grey literature (e.g. reports, brochures, ferences can be found when looking at who is websites and videos by or on TMCNs) was eligible to join the networks. For example, the analysed. World Mayors Council on Climate Change Further data were collected by means of obser- accepts, on an individual membership basis, per- vation at network conferences and seven inter- sons who have at some stage been, or remain, views with key informants among the former and mayors of a city. Here, the focus is much more current staff of networks and cities. These inter- on individual skills and abilities. Climate Alliance views served three purposes: (a) in line with trans- on the other hand is primarily a network of local disciplinary research (Moses & Knutsen 2007; governments, although it does accept membership Jerneck et al. 2010; Khagram et al. 2010)to from other legal entities too. The homepage of include practitioners into the research process at Climate Alliance states that ‘(. . .) cities, municipa- an early stage by helping to formulate the research lities and districts as well as provinces, NGOs and questions; (b) to sort out inconsistencies that were further organisations are members of Climate 218 H. Busch Table 1. Overview TMCNs active in Germany. No. of Geographical members Cooperation focus No. of in Year Initial Current with other (exceptionally Name members Germany founded focus focus Founded by networks strong) C40 58 2 2005 Mitigation Both Bottom up ICLEI Global Cities for Climate 176 11 1990 Mitigation Both ICLEI – Local ICLEI Europe and Protection Governments for Middle East Program (CCP) Sustainability (Finland, UK) Climate Alliance 1403 466 1990 Mitigation Both Bottom up Covenant of Mainly Europe Mayors (Austria, Germany) Covenant of Mayors 4981 53 2008 Mitigation Mitigation EU, Energy Cities Energy Cities, Mainly EU Climate (Italy, Spain) Alliance Energy Cities 1510 7 1990 Mitigation Mitigation Bottom up Covenant of Mainly Europe Mayors (France) Future cities 8 2 2009 Adaptation Adaptation Bottom up - Northwest Europe Mayors adapt 105 5 2014 Adaptation Adaptation EU, Covenant of Covenant of Mainly EU Mayors, Mayors, (Italy, Spain) European Climate Environment Alliance, Agency (EEA) EUROCITIES World Mayors 122 2 2005 Both Both Bottom up Resilient Cities Global Council on ICLEI/ Climate Change UNISDR Resilient City The Making Cities 1626 1 2010 Adaptation Adaptation UNISDR ICLEI Global Resilient: ‘My City is Getting Ready!’ Campaign Note: Both = adaptation and mitigation; UNISDR = United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 219 Alliance.’ Amongst the NGOs are local energy 100,000 inhabitants, 68 are organised in at least efﬁciency agencies or smaller environmental one of the networks. Of these cities, three have a NGOs. Finally, great differences can be found special status as they constitute Federal States, when looking at the commitments members have which in turn encompass several local govern- to make upon joining the networks. These differ ments; these are Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. from no binding commitment (World Mayors Nevertheless, most local governments that hold Council on Climate Change) to the development membership (314 of 488) are rather small, with of a sophisticated climate action plan (Covenant of less than 50,000 inhabitants each. Mayors). These 488 governments have a total of 552 The large number of members of Climate memberships of the 9 identiﬁed networks. 41 Alliance can be explained by the historical devel- governments have more than one membership. opment of the network. Climate Alliance was This group is dominated by major cities. Only founded in Frankfurt (Main), Germany, in 1990 12 of these governments have less than 100,000 by 12 municipalities from Germany, Austria and inhabitants. This accounts for 30% of the gov- Switzerland, 6 indigenous NGOs and members ernments that have more than one membership. from other organisations (other NGOs, university) Municipalities with less than 100,000 inhabitants (Climate Alliance). In its early years Climate account for 80% of the population of all the Alliance was a German-speaking network and municipalities holding membership of a had strong ties to the German development assis- network. tance scene. Not surprisingly, the networks’ Thirteen cities are members of more than two strongholds are the two German-speaking coun- networks. These are (in order of increasing popu- tries, Germany and Austria, with 466 and 960 lation): Worms (3), Heidelberg (5), Rostock (3), members, respectively, out of a total of 1661 Freiburg im Breisgau (5), Aachen (3), Karlsruhe European members. (3), Münster (3), Bonn (5), Hannover (4), Stuttgart The fact that the TMCNs with most members (4), Frankfurt am Main (3), München (4) and (Covenant of Mayors, Energy Cities and Climate Berlin (4). All but one (Worms with 80,000 inha- Alliance) are active in Germany can be seen as a bitants) of these cities have more than 100,000 ﬁrst indication of the inﬂuence these networks inhabitants and all are members of the two most have on German municipalities. dominant networks in Germany, namely, Climate In Germany, 488 local or regional bodies are Alliance and the Covenant of Mayors. In the case organised in one or more of the 9 climate net- of Heidelberg, it should be noted that the city also works. Most of them are municipal level entities. acquired the title ‘City of Ambition’ within the However, 29 districts, as well as 2 associations of Cities for Climate Protection Programme. While municipalities located along river catchments single cities seem to have taken a very active role (Lippe and Emscher), have also acquired member- by joining many networks simultaneously, the ship. These 488 entities account for more than great majority (448) of municipalities in 44.5 Mio inhabitants (double counting elimi- Germany are members of only one network. nated). This means that more than half the These numbers show that TMCN membership German population live in areas in which the is widespread in Germany. More than half the local government is a member of at least one of German population live in municipalities or cities the networks. The database shows a wide prolif- which have joined at least one of the networks. In eration of the networks amongst major cities in addition, some cities are members of several net- Germany. The 32 biggest German cities are mem- works. The wide proliferation of networks bers of at least one of the networks. Of the biggest amongst German municipalities in general and 50 German cities, 48 hold at least one membership cities in particular can also be regarded as an and of all 76 German cities with more than indication of the potential that these networks 220 H. Busch might have in addressing the insufﬁciencies of as a public good to which everybody has access. urban climate governance. At the same time, the provider of this public good, namely the municipality that cuts emis- sions, beneﬁts only marginally from the mitiga- 5.2. TMCNs – adaptation and mitigation tion measures it adopts. TMCNs could in this Most networks initially focussed on mitigation or context serve in two ways: a combination of mitigation and adaptation (see Table 1). The two largest networks that account (1) The great number of other municipalities for the vast majority of memberships in Germany could work as an indicator of climate soli- were initially founded as pure mitigation net- darity. Knowing that others are on board works. Until recently, adaptation alone does not creates the notion of being part of a bigger seem to have been motivated enough for the estab- movement. lishment and wide proliferation of TMCNs. What (2) Municipalities that join a network openly has brought about this development? Firstly, his- commit to the goal of cutting emissions. toric reasons have contributed to this imbalance. Therefore, it is much less likely that these Mitigation was on the agenda of policy makers in municipalities will indulge in free-riding Europe before adaptation entered the stage behaviour (Fay 2007). (Wilbanks et al. 2003; Bulkeley 2010). Mentioning adaptation was morally problematic Several networks started off as combined miti- as it indicated acceptance of the inevitability of gation and adaptation networks. Besides these climate change and thus questioned the legitimacy mixed networks, a development of recent years is of mitigation efforts (Pielke et al. 2007). The last that networks that initially were pure mitigation decade or so has seen a change in the debate; networks have taken adaptation into their portfo- adaptation has not only become an acceptable lio. Climate Alliance, for example, has participated topic (Adger et al. 2009) but, as global climate in a number of climate change adaptation projects. negotiations stalled and alarming information In cooperation with the EU, the Adaptation emerged regarding the prospects for climate and Mitigation - an Integrated Climate Policy change, it has become a necessity (IPCC 2007). Approach project was implemented (Climate Secondly, mitigation measures are in many Alliance 2005) from 2005 to 2010 and, currently, cases similar in different settings (e.g. fostering the Klima Scout Project is being executed in coop- energy-efﬁciency or development of renew- eration with the German Federal Ministry for the ables). Adaptation measures, however, are often Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear perceived as tailor-made according to local con- Safety and the Umweltbundesamt (Climate ditions (Wamsler 2014). This perceived ‘indivi- Alliance 2012). This cooperation can be seen as duality’ of adaptation measures might make the a further indicator of the recognition of the net- transfer of knowledge on this topic in the setting works’ importance in environmental governance of TMCNs much more complicated. by other than local actors in the European multi- Thirdly, mitigation and adaptation are two level system (Betsill & Bulkeley 2006). very different goods in the economic sense of Moreover, climate change adaptation was the term. Following Elinor Ostrom’s reasoning, taken up by networks that do not exclusively one could frame adaptation as a private good that focus on climate change related topics or that beneﬁts only a certain group of people, namely, were initially not at all concerned with climate the inhabitants of a municipality (Tompkins & change. Two examples for the ﬁrst are the Eakin 2012). Others who live outside the munici- UNISDR Resilient Cities Campaign and ICLEI – pality’s borders are excluded from using it. Local Governments for Sustainability. These net- Mitigation on the other hand can thus be framed works include climate change adaptation as one International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 221 aspect of their wider objectives. For the Resilient sphere of inﬂuence and the general advancement Cities Campaign, the issue of climate change in the issue of climate change adaptation adaptation is part of their approach to make cities (Wamsler 2014). The recently (March 2014) more resilient (UNISDR 2012), while ICLEI launched Mayors Adapt, which serves as an includes responses to climate change as part adaptation complement to the Covenant of of the transition towards sustainability that their Mayors, is further proof of this development. members have committed themselves to initiate Thus, the trend towards more adaptation on the (ICLEI). ICLEI also hosts a number of sub-net- agenda of TMCNs continues. works and projects that are concerned with climate change. The most important of these ICLEI-run 5.3. Functions of TMCNs sub-networks in the context of climate change is the Cities for Climate Protection Programme In the following section, a conceptualisation of (CCP). As ICLEI constitutes a kind of meta-net- TMCNs is undertaken. This conceptualisation is work which acts through sub-networks, it was not a synthesis based on the literature review and considered in this investigation. An example of a on an analysis of the collected empirical network that was founded for entirely different material. reasons would be the Union of the Baltic Cities A rather general deﬁnition of TMCN func- (UBC). On the homepage of UBC, the network is tions is provided by Andonova et al. Three described thus ‘Union of the Baltic Cities is a different ‘functional categories’ for all kinds voluntary, proactive network mobilizing the of different networks in the context of transna- shared potential of over 100 member cities for tional climate governance have been identiﬁed democratic, economic, social, cultural and envir- (Andonova et al. 2009). The functional cate- onmentally sustainable development of the Baltic gories are: information-sharing, capacity- Sea Region’ (http://www.ubc.net/). As this building and implementation and rule-setting. description shows, climate change is not in the The ﬁrst category, information-sharing, can be main focus of this organisation. However, it does divided into two sub-functions, one for exter- concern itself with these issues in the form of, e.g., nal use beyond the network’s structures and the setting agendas of network meetings accordingly other for internal use within the network’s or by providing links on their websites to other structure. The external use of information may transnational municipal (climate) networks such as be seen ‘as a tool of political leverage’ ICLEI, Climate Alliance or Energy Cities. Like (Andonova et al. 2009, p. 63) when it is used ICLEI and EURO Cities, the UBC network was to exert pressure on actors outside the network not considered for the quantitative investigation such as nation-states. If the internal use of for this article. information is accepted as authoritative and is The historic development of TMCNs shows used to steer members within the network in a ﬁrst wave of mitigation networks in the early their political decision-making, it may be 1990s and a second wave around the mid-2000s framed as a form of internal governance by that brought the adaptation issue onto the cli- the networks. Networks that use information mate network agenda. This suggests that the in these ways include, e.g. advocacy networks accumulated impact of the networks is more and epistemic communities. The second func- established and probably much more important tional category is capacity-building and imple- in relation to mitigation than adaptation. The mentation, which includes the provision of realisation that networks which formerly resources through networks. These resources focussed only on mitigation have adopted the canbeanythingsuchas ‘ﬁnancial resources, topic of adaptation can furthermore be viewed expertise, labour, technology or monitoring’ as a testament of the expansion of the networks’ (Andonova et al. 2009, p. 64). Within these 222 H. Busch networks, processes of negotiating the ﬂow of of investigating the networks’ impact on the these resources take centre-stage. The third local level. functional category is rule-setting by govern- After analysing the available literature on ance networks. In this kind of network, rules TMNs, Bouteligier came to the conclusion that are developed and members voluntarily commit ‘few generalizable analytical frameworks have to these rules. The authors pointed out that the been formulated so far’ by the literature that functional categories are not mutually exclu- focuses on cities as actors within networks sive and that networks might be characterised (Bouteligier 2013, p. 48). In speaking of TMN by all three functions. In the case of the goals, she identiﬁed three functions that are similar TMCNs that were investigated for this article, to the Andonova et al. framework: ‘(1) exchange this deﬁnitely seems to be case. While this information, knowledge and best practices; (2) typology is probably the best available for increase cities’ capacity; and (3) voice cities’ con- analysing transnational climate networks, it cerns in the international arena’. However, no has a disadvantage that makes it inadequate framework is developed from this analysis of for this article. This disadvantage lies in the TMNs goals. way in which the authors locate actors. The The analysis of the identiﬁed functions of ‘three functional categories’ they identify TMCNs, which was conducted for this article led were derived ‘by considering the way in to a reﬁned categorisation that assists, ﬁrst, in which networks steer members towards parti- bringing some degree of order into a slightly con- cular public purposes’ (Andonova et al. 2009, fusing ﬁeld of research where geographical and p. 63). This rather passive view of the mem- functional overlaps occur. Secondly, it helps us bers of the network is conﬁrmed in p. 64, to understand these overlaps by identifying where the authors speak about The Climate whether networks work in a complementary way, or whether they compete in the same niche. Group, a hybrid network consisting of public and private members. Here, the authors write Thirdly, a categorisation provides a ﬁrst under- about ‘governing constituents’ and again ‘steer standing of what incentives municipalities have constituents’. Bouteligier sorted the literature to join networks. As this framework is based on on TMNs into two different groups: studies the analysis of both the empirical material and the that see cities as spaces and those that see literature in this ﬁeld there is, of course, an overlap them as actors (Bouteligier 2013). I acknowl- with frameworks developed by other researchers, edge that networks assume actor status on their the most important being those of Toly and own. However, I argue that members of a Andonova et al. (Toly 2008; Andonova et al. TMCN retain their agency and increase rather 2009). than decreasing their scope of available options A ﬁrst attempt to categorise the networks upon joining a TMCN. Even if Andonova active in Germany can be found in Table 1. et al. did not intend to negate cities’ actor While this provides a ﬁrst overview of the net- status their focus on the networks (and not works’ general characteristics, it does not reﬂect the members) makes their typology inappropri- the actual activities undertaken by the TMCNs. ate for this article. Furthermore, the categorisa- From an analysis of these activities four main tion of ‘information sharing’ seems to be too functions emerged. These will be used in further broad for a sensible application to TMCNs. categorisation and analysis of the networks that Internal information-sharing and external infor- were investigated for this article (see Table 2). mation-sharing are in the case of TMCNs fun- These functions are: damentally different functions with very different requirements. Combining them in (1) Networks as platforms, one sole function is inadequate for the purpose (2) Networks as consultants, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 223 Table 2. Functions of TMCNs. Networks as Networks as Commitment Name platform consultants brokers City advocates C40 High Low Medium Medium Cities for Climate Protection Program (CCP) Low High Medium High (through ICLEI) Climate Alliance High High Medium High Covenant of Mayors Medium High High - Energy Cities High High Low Medium Future cities High Medium - - Mayors Adapt High Medium - - World Mayors Council on Climate Change High High Medium High (through ICLEI) The Making Cities Resilient: ‘My City is High Medium - Medium Getting Ready!’ Campaign Notes: Networks as platforms – low: public membership list; medium: + best practice examples are advertised; high: + regular member conferences. Networks as consultants – low: some information material for members is available; medium: + networks have produced their own material and offer access to their members; high: + members are accompanied by network staff in their implementation processes. Networks as commitment brokers – low: members commit to abstract mitigation goals; medium: + members commit to concrete (quantiﬁable) goals / criteria from “high” on a voluntary basis; high: + progress by members is reported and reports are accessible by other members. Cities’ advocate – low: networks talk about national/international global climate governance; medium: + networks actively lobby on national or international level; high: networks are present at high proﬁle conferences such as COP negotiations. (3) Networks as commitment brokers, and Lindseth 2004; Keiner & Kim 2007;Curtis 2010; (4) Networks as city advocates. Bouteligier 2013). Observations at network confer- ences conﬁrm that this function fosters the These functions are not mutually exclusive. exchange of ideas between cities. Naturally, the The networks investigated have complex activity focus is on communicating best-practice examples portfolios and thus can adopt several of these and the ways in which these can inspire other functions at the same time. municipalities. However, it seems to be at least Networks as platforms describe the space that conceivable that this space is used with different networks grant their members to exchange informa- motives. Place-branding (with sustainability tion and know-how amongst themselves. Networks achievements) has become an activity many cities thus become arenas for the horizontal exchange of and even regions engage in (Dinnie 2010). The climate change expertise. Municipalities that spear- Öresund region that encompasses Copenhagen and headed the implementation of local climate change large parts of densely populated Southern Sweden responses seem to be particularly active in using has for example made a considerable effort to brand networks to disseminate information (Kern & itself as green and sustainable (Anderberg & Clark Bulkeley 2009). Networks provide this space 2012). The special status that some cities can through, for example, ‘best-practice workshops’ at acquire in ICLEI’s CCP, namely ‘City of their conferences or through member proﬁle pages Ambition’ (in Germany Heidelberg), can be seen on the ofﬁcial websites. The space that networks as a further indication of the possibility for cities to grant their members is mostly associated with learn- use the networks as platforms for place-branding ing processes (e.g. Betsill & Bulkeley 2004; activities. 224 H. Busch The second function is that of networks as argument in favour of ambitious climate measures. consultants. Networks that take on this role Given the nature of the issue this mainly refers to actively help their members to achieve their cli- climate change mitigation policies. mate protection goals by providing information Last but not least, some networks assume the and supporting members in implementing local function of city advocates. In this role, networks solutions. Networks apply different measures lobby for their members’ interest at higher admin- when fulﬁlling this function. Upon joining, istrative levels, such as nation states or the EU. members often obtain access to the networks’ Many TMCNs keep ofﬁces in Brussels (Energy know-how and management tools. These include Cities, Covenant of Mayors and Climate Alliance) specialised software for the assessment of local and the Covenant of Mayors as well as Mayors emissions or ‘step-by-step’ instructions on how to Adapt are ofﬁcially supported by the European implement local climate policies (Zeppel 2013a). Commission. Staff from Networks also attend In providing these services, networks do not rely international conferences such as the Conference on their members’ infrastructure and know-how of the Parties (COP). In this way, local govern- but fall back on their ‘own’ resources. Staff of ments are enabled to leapfrog administrative and municipalities reported that the provision of tools political hurdles and gain added importance in the and guidelines had inﬂuenced the municipal work arena of global climate governance (Toly 2008; on climate issues. According to several infor- Andonova et al. 2009). Just like the networks as mants, tools for calculating a city’s greenhouse consultants, the advocate role requires a certain gas emissions were particularly helpful. This ver- degree of infrastructure and formalisation. By tical transfer of information (network to member) assuming a mandate from their members networks requires a certain degree of formalisation of the challenge conventional ways of government and network in question. Networks have to have shape climate governance that takes place on sev- access to independent infrastructure to provide eral levels simultaneously (Bulkeley et al. 2003; these services. This role also marks the ascension Bulkeley & Betsill 2005; Davies 2005; Betsill & of networks from being a group of members that Kern & Bulkeley 2009). An exam- Bulkeley 2006; interact to constituting a separate (legal) entity. ple of this in Germany is the statement issued by Some networks take on the role of commitment Climate Alliance after its national conference in brokers. Networks with this function ask their November 2014. After a long discussion during members – usually upon joining – to commit to the conference on the course of the energy transi- certain goals with regard to climate change poli- tion in Germany, the delegates of member munici- cies. This requires some degree of formalisation of palities arrived at a common position. The the goals in the form of a resolution or declaration. resulting statement entails demands and sugges- Municipalities then have to report their own pro- tions for the reformation of the national legal gress to the network, which then communicates it framework on questions of energy. The statement to other members and/or the public. An example was then published by the network and distributed of this is the homepage of the Covenant of to relevant media outlets. Mayors, where everyone can ﬁnd a link to check These four functions are based on the activities the members’ progress in reaching their committed that networks undertake. Additional functions that goals. This creates an atmosphere of transparency members assign the networks have not been taken and accountability that helps to reduce the fear of into account for this article. Of these ‘place brand- free-riding behaviour (Fay 2007; Toly 2008). ing’, the ‘use of membership as an argument in Interviews with the former and current staff mem- local politics’ and ‘network activities as motiva- bers of networks conﬁrmed the importance of this tional factor for climate managers’ deserve further function. In local politics, the commitment made attention. However, these lay outside of the scope upon joining the network often played out as an of this article. Therefore, this list may not be International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 225 conclusive when looking at how cities make use of TMCNs on local governments in Ireland was lim- their membership. Furthermore, the boundaries ited (Davies 2005). Her main conclusion is that between the different functions are not necessarily this is due to the uncertainty about who is respon- clear-cut and, in particular, the two information- sible for addressing climate change and on what sharing functions (networks as platforms and net- scale interventions should be made. Zeppel found works as consultants) may go hand in hand, as that the CCP provides a number of beneﬁts to networks rely on the achievements of their mem- local governments: ‘GHG reductions, ﬁnancial bers when designing policy recommendations for savings, greater awareness of climate change in other members. However, the four functions that councils and communities, local leadership and emerged from the analysis can serve as a helpful integrated programmes on climate change with heuristic when analysing network activities. All 9 key stakeholders and a network of CCP councils’ TMCNs that were considered in this article were (Zeppel 2013a, p. 223). Based on these beneﬁts investigated on the basis of their functions. All the CCP has ‘played a signiﬁcant role in urban networks’ functions have been classiﬁed according climate programmes’ (Zeppel 2013a, p. 226). For to the degree of their involvement. The tree clas- the Australian context, she found that CCP had siﬁcations are low, medium and high. The criteria been adopted by 238 local councils (Zeppel 2012). for assigning the classiﬁcations, as well as an A survey among councils in Queensland, overview of the networks’ performance in the Australia, established that 50% (16 out of 32 function, can be found in Table 2. responding councils) had joined CCP. It was This categorisation has shown that networks found that CCP contributed to a minor degree to can fulﬁl more than one function simultaneously. emission reductions by means of climate certiﬁca- The observed functional diversity may be a sign of tion (Zeppel 2013b). a multitude of inﬂuences that networks may have The literature analysis yielded only one inves- on several levels of climate governance. Through tigation (published in two formats: a master thesis the combination of different functions, networks 2011 and a peer-reviewed article in 2014) that in develop different proﬁles. Consequently, the speciﬁcally focussed on the impact of TMCNs in impact may differ from network to network. It Germany. In this study, Hakelberg investigates the also means that municipalities can chose between impact of TMCNs on the local level (Hakelberg different proﬁles of networks. A choice between 2011, 2014). He limits his investigation to members different proﬁles enables the municipalities to join of the Cities for Climate Protection Programme, a network that addresses their own particular Climate Alliance, Energy Cities and C40. His needs more accurately, thereby enhancing the main ﬁnding is that membership of a TMCN sig- impact made by networks. niﬁcantly increases the likelihood that European municipalities will develop a climate strategy of their own and issue local climate policies. 5.4. Impacts – the literature on Germany However, he neglects the question of adaptation. Very few studies investigate cases of impact by While his quantitative data is rich, it focuses on TMCNs on their members. Bulkeley found that Europe, rather than Germany, as the unit of analy- the Cities for Climate Protection Programme sis. In the second half of his study, he investigates attracts networks mainly by offering ﬁnancial and two German cases qualitatively (Hannover and political resources and by conferring legitimacy Offenbach). His ﬁndings from these two cases indi- (Betsill & Bulkeley 2004). Kern and Bulkeley cate that TMCNs inﬂuence cities in that they serve suggested that municipalities engaged in these net- as a ‘key resource of knowledge and expertise’ for works are often pioneers that search for an city administrations. He points out that this is true exchange with other pioneers (Kern & Bulkeley for both the newcomer- (Offenbach) as well as the 2009). According to Davies, the impact of pioneer-city (Hannover). Despite the many hundred 226 H. Busch memberships no further studies were found that World Mayors Council on Climate Change. speciﬁcally investigate the impact of TMCNs on ICLEIisalsoconnectedto the C40Cities local climate governance in Germany. Climate Leadership Group. ICLEI’simportant position as the hub between different networks can be explained by ICLEI’sown proﬁle. 5.5. Institutional links between TMCNs Among other things that it does, ICLEI pro- Links between networks are widespread. Analysis motes urban development that brings about ‘sus- of material provided by the networks suggests that tainable, resilient (. . .) and low carbon’ (ICLEI) two main blocks of TMCNs have emerged: in one cities. ICLEI addressed issues that are related to block there is a stronger focus on mitigation, local responses to climate change while consti- whereas in the other it is on adaptation (see tuting a network that is concerned with a wider Table 1). The former comprises networks con- array of topics. nected to the Covenant of Mayors, which includes As shown, there are links between the different among its supporters several other networks, sub- networks, such as cities that are members of sev- networks and associations of local governments. eral networks or joint initiatives (e.g. Covenant of Among the group of networks that were investi- Mayors). The functioning and impact of single gated in this article Mayors Adapt, Energy Cities networks can only be fully understood if links and Climate Alliance deserves mention. The between networks are taken into consideration. Covenant appears to serve as a mitigation hub, Furthermore, the analysis found indicators of the so a point of intersection for mitigation networks. existence of two meta-networks that might serve All four networks – Climate Alliance, Energy as focal points for the networks’ efforts. It seems Cities, the Covenant of Mayors and Mayors that these meta-networks were set up to coordinate Adapt – share an address in Brussels and the networks’ activities and increase efﬁciency; how- Covenant of Mayors employs staff from the three ever, more research on this aspect of TMCNs is other networks (Climate Alliance 2013; Covenant needed. of Mayors 2013; Energy Cities 2013). This fact is less surprising when the historical development of 6. Conclusion the Covenant of Mayors is taken into considera- tion; while the institution was supported by the The literature on TMCNs argues that TMCNs are EU, Energy Cities and Climate Alliance played a important actors in global climate governance. major role in setting up the network. Today, both Scholars have further demonstrated that TMCNs Energy Cities and Climate Alliance provide links can affect all levels of the European multilevel to the homepage of the Covenant of Mayors on governance system, whilst comparatively little their home page. research has been conducted on the impact of A link between the networks focussing on TMCNs at local levels. TMCNs are widespread mitigation and those focussing on both mitiga- among German cities. However, nearly 25 years tion and adaptation is established through ICLEI after the ﬁrst TMCNs started their work in – Local Governments for Sustainability which Germany much is still unknown about their actual is, on the one hand on the list of Covenant impact on urban climate governance on the local supporters, while on the other hand ICLEI level. serves as a hub for adaptation networks. It is This article demonstrates the potential TMCNs the mother organisation for the Cities for have to exert considerable inﬂuence on urban cli- Climate Protection Programme which nowadays mate governance in Germany. It presents an ana- focuses on mitigation and adaptation alike. lysis of the proliferation and characteristics of Furthermore it supports the UNISDR Resilient TMCNs in Germany, provides a conceptual frame- City Network which is also supported by the work for locating TMCNs impacts at municipal International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 227 level and identiﬁes knowledge gaps that need central role for this function. While the Covenant further investigation. of Mayors manages an own reporting system other The results show that the TMCNs active in networks such as the World Mayors Council rely Germany have different proﬁles, which are shaped on the members willingness to join the Carbonn not only by their varying emphasis on mitigation Climate Registry. The commitment broker func- and adaptation but also by the degree to which tion does not per se enable municipalities to imple- they assume different functions: ment more ambitious climate policies. It however The networks as platforms function describes can help facilitate decision making processes in the scope that networks offer their members to local politics. By placing a municipality’s efforts communicate their climate policies. This function into the narrative of a broad climate movement, is ﬁrst and foremost related to learning processes ambitious goals can more easily be argued for. between municipalities. Most networks afford The function of networks as city advocate is their members opportunities to present their poli- assumed by the networks in different degrees. The cies to each other (see Table 2). This exchange of Covenant of Mayors and Future Cities don’t take ideas can foster the proliferation of new and inno- it up at all. While Future Cities seems to lack the vative practices of local climate governance. capacity to engage in lobbying activities in the Learning from other cities might not only enable ﬁrst place, the Covenant of Mayors has no need local administrations to see what is possible but to fulﬁl this role. As a network that emerged from also how ambitious goals can be achieved. Thus, the cooperation between Energy Cities and the platform function widens the scope of avail- Climate Alliance it can simply rely on their efforts able climate options for network members. The in this ﬁeld. Other networks, such as Climate material compiled for this study indicates that Alliance, actively assume this function, e.g. by cities making use of this function are not moti- their attendance at the COP 19 negotiations in vated solely by altruistic considerations. However, Warsaw, 2013. While these efforts do not directly the boundary between sincere knowledge-sharing affect the member cities it aims at improving the and place-branding activities is less clear-cut than political environment and legal frame in which one might wish. local governments take their decision. Just as All the networks investigated provide some with the consultant function, the city advocate kind of consultancy services to their members role requires networks to set up the necessary (see Table 2). The degree of activity differs and infrastructure to coordinate and implement their depends, among other things, on the infrastructure efforts. that the network in question commands. However, Based on the differences in the networks’ pro- the provision of services by networks does not ﬁles it is to be expected that the potential impact automatically lead to an implementation of mea- the networks have on their members differs from sures in municipalities. Only networks that have network to network. This assumption is conﬁrmed some form of institutionalised infrastructure can by the fact that the responsibility for the network provide more sophisticated forms of this function. membership in bigger cities with more than one Nonetheless, the existence of numerous tool, membership is often dispersed over several depart- guides and other consultancy services greatly ments within the same city administration. The increase the scope of local climate policies. wide proliferation as well as the wide range of As commitment broker networks help their potential beneﬁts that are provided through the members to live up to the voluntary commitments different functions are indications of the impact that they make when embarking on membership. of the TMCNs on urban climate governance in Some networks do not provide this function at all. Germany. However, more research – quantitative The Covenant of Mayors has proved to be the and qualitative – is needed to conﬁrm the hypoth- most active in this ﬁeld. Carbon registries play a esis of the networks’ impact that has been derived 228 H. Busch from this analysis. Future research should be climate change adaptation policies is needed. It directed at the following four research gaps iden- would be interesting to see how the four network tiﬁed in this article: functions that were identiﬁed for this article man- ifest in the context of adaptation. Especially, the commitment broker function needs to be reworked 6.1. De facto impact for the adaptation activities of networks. Very few case studies investigate the actual impact of TMCNs at the municipal level (e.g. Davies 6.3. Conceptual framework 2005; Hakelberg 2014). This is partly because most publications on this topic are in the ﬁeld of A satisfying comprehensive categorisation of political science. The strong inﬂuence of scholars TMCNs that can be used as a starting point to from international relations has directed the focus assess the networks’ impact has yet to be made. towards the impact TMCNs have on higher levels Keiner and Kim (Keiner & Kim 2007) attempted of governance (e.g. national and EU level). to do so, but because it applies too broad a deﬁni- Further in-depth investigations of how TMCNs’ tion of transnational networks and includes too inﬂuence the local level could produce the relevant many characteristics their analysis lacks strin- and interesting insights that are necessary for a gency. The categorisation by Andonova et al. more comprehensive understanding of the impact (Andonova et al. 2009) served as a starting point of TMCNs. Further research should address this for this study. However, their analysis includes all research gap by conducting case studies of TMCN networks that were set up in response to climate member cities and their climate policies in con- change and not only municipal ones. Furthermore, nection with their membership. Further quantita- their functional categories only partly reﬂect the tive data on German member cities would shed municipal perspective. This present article there- light on this issue. I suggest a survey with either fore presented a categorisation based on the net- all German municipalities or a share of them in works’ activities that can be used as a basis for case ﬁndings are supposed to be limited to a further investigating TMCN impact. However, speciﬁc group within the population (e.g. cities further empirical work is needed to conﬁrm the above 100,000 inhabitants). functions presented in this article. 6.2. Mitigation and adaptation 6.4. Meta networks All studies on TMCNs so far focus on the impact A ﬁnal ﬁnding is that cooperation between net- these networks have on the governance of climate works is widespread. Networks cooperate in single change mitigation. However, recently many of the projects, share infrastructure and staff or set up networks have adopted some kind of climate new networks together as in the case of the change adaptation component. Even if networks Covenant of Mayors. Just like climate change such as the Cities for Climate Protection adaptation, this aspect of TMCNs seems not to Programme or Climate Alliance were initially net- have made it onto the agenda of researchers in works focussing solely on mitigation, climate this ﬁeld and should thus be further researched change adaptation has become an important part since the networks’ impact can only be assessed of their portfolio. In March 2014 Mayors Adapt if synergies between them are taken into account. I was launched, to act as an adaptation counterpart suggest two different approaches to this topic. of the Covenant of Mayors, bearing further testi- First, future research should attempt to unveil mony to this development. These current develop- how cooperation between networks takes place ments underline the timeliness of the issue. More on the network level. Staff of cooperating knowledge on how TMCNs inﬂuence local TMCNs should be interviewed to learn more International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 229 about inter-network cooperation. Events such as change? Clim Change. 93:335–354. doi:10.1007/ s10584-008-9520-z shared conferences can be a further source of Anderberg S, Clark E. 2012. The green and sustainable information. Second, when assessing the actual Øresund region: eco-branding Copenhagen and impact of networks on the municipal level through Malmö. In: Vojnovic I, editor. Sustain a glob urban case studies special attention should be paid to context. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. how cities perceive different networks and net- Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H. 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob Environ work cooperation. It would be interesting to Polit [Internet];9:52–73. Available from: http:// know if membership in one network increases www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/glep. the likelihood of a city to join a second one. 2009.9.2.52 Betsill M, Bulkeley H. 2004. Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q Disclosure statement [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 3];471–493. Available No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j. author. 0020-8833.2004.00310.x/full Betsill M, Bulkeley H. 2006. Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov Funding [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 29]; 12:141–159, This research was supported by the Linneus Centre Available from: http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/ LUCID (Lund University Centre of Excellence for the 10.5555/ggov.2006.12.2.141 Integration of Social and Natural Dimensions of Betsill MM. 2001. Mitigating climate change in US Sustainability) funded by the Swedish Research cities: opportunities and obstacles. Local Environ. Council Formas [grant number 259-2008-1718]. No 6:393–406. doi:10.1080/13549830120091699 further funding has been received. Bouteligier S. 2013. Cities, networks, and global envir- onmental governance: spaces of innovation, places of leadership. Abingdon: Routledge. Bulkeley H. 2010. Cities and the governing of climate Note change. Annu Rev Environ Resour [Internet]. [cited 1. 21st International Annual Conference of Climate 2014 Jan 21];35:229–253, Available from: http:// Alliance in The Hague, May 2013 and 2014. www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- Kommunale Klimaschutz-Konferenz in Lübeck, environ-072809-101747 November 2014. Bulkeley H. 2013. Cities and climate change. London: Routledge. Bulkeley H, Betsill M. 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the “Urban” poli- Notes on contributor tics of climate change. Env Polit [Internet]. [cited Henner Busch is a doctoral candidate in Sustainability 2013 Nov 7];14:42–63. Available from: http://www. Science at Lund University Centre for Sustainability tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0964401042000 Studies (LUCSUS) and Lund University Centre of Excellence for Integration of Social and Natural Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V, Hodson M, Marvin S. 2013. Dimensions of Sustainability (LUCID) in Sweden. He Introduction. In: Bulkeley H, Castán BV, Hodson M, mainly works on local responses to climate change and Marvin S, editors. Cities low carbon transitions. renewable energy. Milton Park: Routledge, Revised pa; p. 1–10. Bulkeley H, Davies A, Evans B, Gibbs D, Kern K, ORCID Theobald K. 2003. Environmental governance and transnational municipal networks in Europe. J Henner Busch http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0468-2155 Environ Policy Plan [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20];5:235–254. Available from: http://www.tandfon line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1523908032000154179 References Climate Alliance. 2005. Adaptation and Mitigation – an Integrated Climate Policy Approach [Internet]. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www. I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate amica-climate.net/home1.html 230 H. Busch Climate Alliance. 2012. Cliamte Scout [Internet]. [cited Hakelberg L. 2014. Governance by diffusion: transna- 2013 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.klimasc tional municipal networks and the spread of local out.de/ climate strategies in Europe. Glob Environ Polit. Climate Alliance. 2013. Climate Alliance ofﬁce in 14:107–129. Brussels [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available ICLEI. Homepage [Internet]. [cited 2013a Dec 20]. from: http://www.klimabuendnis.org/brussels- Available from: http://www.iclei.org/ ofﬁce0.html#c2716 ICLEI. ICLEI – who we are [Internet]. [cited 2013b Dec Covenant of Mayors. 2013. Contact page of the 20]. Available from: http://www.iclei.org/iclei-glo Covenant of Mayors [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec bal/who-is-iclei.html 20]. Available from: http://www.eumayors.eu/ IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: an assessment of the about/contact_en.html intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Curtis S. 2010. Global cities and the transformation of Pachauri RK, Reisinger A, editors. Climate change, the international system. Rev Int Stud [Internet]. Vol. 446; [Internet]. Geneva: IPCC; p. 12–17. [cited 2014 Aug 28];37:1923–1947. Available Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_ report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf S0260210510001099 Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Davies A. 2005. Local action for climate change: trans- Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, national networks and the Irish experience. Local Lövbrand E, Persson J. 2010. Structuring sustain- Environ [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 18];10:21–40, ability science. Sustain Sci [Internet]. [cited 2011 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Aug 22];6:69–82, Available from: http://www. 1354983042000309298 springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x Dinnie K, editor. 2010. City branding – theory and Kamal-Chaoui L, Roberts A 2009. Competitive cities cases. Place unknown: Palgrave Macmillan. and climate change – OECD Regional Development Dodman D. 2009. Blaming cities for climate change? Working Paper [Internet]. Paris; [cited 2013 Sep An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions 19]. Available from: http://www1.oecd.org/govern inventories. Environ Urban [Internet]. [cited 2013 ance/regional-policy/44232251.pdf Sep 18];21:185–201. Available from: http://eau.sage Keiner M, Kim A. 2007. Transnational city networks for pub.com/content/21/1/185.short sustainability. Eur Plan Stud [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep Energy Cities. 2013. Come and meet us – contact page 4];15:1369–1395, Available from: http://www.tandfon of Energy Cities [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20]. line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654310701550843 Available from: http://www.energy-cities.eu/ Kern K, Bulkeley H. 2009. Cities, Europeanization and Privacy multi-level governance: governing climate change Fay C. 2007. Think locally, act globally: lessons to learn through transnational municipal networks. JCMS J from the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. Common Mark Stud [Internet]; 47:309–332. Innov J Polit [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 5];7:1–12, Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j. Available from: http://www.calgaryurbancampus. 1468-5965.2009.00806.x ucalgary.ca/innovations/ﬁles/innovations/Fay- Khagram S, Nicholas KA, Bever DM, Warren J, ThinkLocally.pdf Richards EH, Oleson K, Kitzes J, Katz R, Hwang Forsee W, Ahmad S. 2011. Evaluating urban storm-water R, Goldman R. et al. 2010. Thinking about know- infrastructure design in response to projected climate ing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary change. J Hydrol Eng [Internet]. [cited 2013 environmental research. Environ Conserv Oct 30];865–873. Available from: http://ascelibrary. [Internet]. [cited 2011 Aug 28];37:388–397. org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000383 Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/ Hajer MA, Wagenaar H, Goodin RE, Barry B, Hardin abstract_S0376892910000809 R, Pateman C, Weingast B, Elkin S. 2003. Klijn E-H, Skelcher C. 2007. Democracy and govern- Deliberative policy analysis: understanding govern- ance networks: compatible or not? Public Adm ance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge [Internet];85:587–608. Available from: http://doi. University Press. wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x Hakelberg L. 2011. Governing climate change by diffu- Kronsell A. 2013. Legitimacy for climate policies: pol- sion [Internet]. 1st ed. Berlin: Freie Universität itics and participation in the Green City of Freiburg. Berlin, Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik. Local Environ [Internet];18:965–982. Available Available from: http://edocs.fu-berlin.de/docs/serv from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ lets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDOCS_derivate_ 13549839.2012.748732 000000001736/Hakelberg_ffu_report_08-2011.pdf? Lindseth G. 2004. The Cities for Climate Protection hosts= Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 231 policy. Local Environ [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov UNISDR. 2012. Making cities resilient: my city is getting 5];9:325–336. Available from:,http://www.tandfon ready [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 7]. Available from: line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1354983042000246252 http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/ Lowndes V. 2001. Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institu- United Nations. 2013. Millennium development tional theory seriously in urban politics. Urban Stud goals indicators – carbon dioxide emissions. [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 21];38:1953–1971. New York (NY): United Nations. Available from: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/38/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 11/1953.short Change. 2013. Report of the Conference of the Maria V, Rahman M, Collins P. 2013. Urban Heat Island Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw Effect: thermal response from different types of from 11 to 23 November 2013 [Internet]. [cited exposed paved surfaces. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2014 Jan 31]. Warsaw. Available from: http:// [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 18];6:414–422. Available unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf from: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1259488 Wamsler C. 2014. Cities, disaster risk and adaptation. Moses J, Knutsen T. 2007. Ways of knowing: competing 1st ed. London: Routledge. methodologies in social and political research. New Wamsler C, Brink E, Rivera C. 2013. Planning York: Palgrave McMillan. for climate change in urban areas: from theory Pielke R, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D. 2007. Climate to practice. J Clean Prod [Internet]. [cited change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 2013 Dec 12];50:68–81. Available from: http://lin [Internet]. [cited 2013 Nov 6];445:597–598. kinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095965261200 Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/jour 652X nal/v445/n7128/abs/445597a.html Wilbanks TJ, Kane SM, Leiby PN, Perlack RD, Settle Risse-Kappen T. 1995. Bringing transnational relations C, Shogren JF, Smith JB. 2003. Possible responses back in. New York: Cambridge University Press. to global climate change: integrating mitigation and Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Hammer SA, Mehrotra S. adaptation. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 2010. Cities lead the way in climate-change action. [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jan 31];45:28–38. Available Nature. 467:909–911. from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ Satterthwaite D. 2008. Cities’ contribution to global warm- 00139150309604547 ing: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emis- Zeppel H. 2012. Governing carbon mitigation and cli- sions. Environ Urban [Internet]. [cited 2013 Mar mate change within local councils: a case study of 19];20:539–549, Available from: http://eau.sagepub. Adelaide, South Australia. Commonw J Local Gov com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247808096127 [Internet]. [cited 2014 Oct 2];70–85. Available Toly NJ. 2008. Transnational municipal networks in from: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. climate politics: from global governance to global php/cjlg/article/view/2690 politics. Globalizations [Internet]. [cited 2013 Zeppel H. 2013a. The ICLEI cities for climate protec- Sep 2];5:341–356, Available from: http://www.tand tion program: local government networks for urban fonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747730802252479 climate governance. In: Cadman T, editor. Climate Tompkins EL, Eakin H. 2012. Managing private and change and global policy regimes: towards institu- public adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ tional legitimacy [Internet]. Place unknown: Chang [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jan 25];22:3–11, Palgrave Macmillan; [cited 2014 Sep 18];p. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ 217–231. Available from: http://www.palgravecon retrieve/pii/S0959378011001452 nect.com/doiﬁnder/10.1057/9781137006127 UN-Habitat. 2011. Cities and climate change – Global Report Zeppel H. 2013b. Carbon management by Queensland on Human Settlements 2011. London: UN-Habitat. local councils. J Corp Citizsh. 2013:117–136.

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 3, 2015

Keywords: transnational municipal networks; climate governance; Germany; climate change; urban transformation

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

Linked for action? An analysis of transnational municipal climate networks in Germany

References (55)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies