‘A very human business’—Transnational networking initiatives and domestic climate action

Abstract

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. We would also like to thank the interviewees who participated in this research for their time and valuable insights. Declaration of interest: Michal Nachmany was employed by GLOBE International between March-July 2013, and was the lead author of the climate legislation study produced at the time in collaboration between GLOBE International and LSE. All the main primary data collection (interviews) and analysis were conducted after the author's employment with GLOBE had finished.

Intermediary organisations in collaborative environmental governance: evidence of the EU-funded LIFE sub-programme for the environment (LIFE-ENV)

“…In more detail, within the broad realm of collaborative environmental governance we can refer to the concept of network governance ( Rhodes, 1996 , 1998 ) (hereinafter NG), which is becoming an increasingly popular approach for dealing with complex and dynamic issues that characterise environmental policies (e.g. Aggestam, 2018 ; Perkins and Nachmany, 2019 ). Studies have observed the importance of networking in CEG in relation to conservation of nature ( Snijders et al., 2017 ), transition to a green economy ( Imbert et al., 2018 ), management of protected areas within the Natura 2000 network ( Manolache et al., 2018 ), management of water resources ( Lienert et al., 2013 ; Edens and Graveland, 2014 ), management of forest resources ( Kleinschmit et al., 2018 ), and analysis of regional governance ( Grönholm, 2018 ).…”

How Can Psychology Contribute to Climate Change Governance? A Systematic Review

“…The third cluster, which, with twelve records, is the smallest, explicitly refers to psychological group dynamics, i.e., cognitive, affective and relational processes in public, participatory and institutional fora. In particular, the studies in question refer to mental health care in risk governance systems [124]; policymaking and planning in the field of climate governance [113], especially with respect to transnational climate negotiations [83,110,123,125,127]; social norm-based governance strategies [118]; public engagement in collective action [120]; and collaboration with stakeholders and residents to build climate resilience [81,82].…”

“…Attention was from time to time placed on interdependence between individual and community processes in risk prevention [124]; pitfalls in group dynamics interfering with decision-making desirable outcomes, such as polarisation, confirmation bias and groupthink [123]; social influence [118]; role of relational and affective dynamics like social identity, solidarity, collective emotions, efficacy and inspiration in shaping both international deliberations and local climate action [110,120,125,127]; motivating factors, psychological impacts and coping strategies of young people in dealing with asymmetrical power relations that mark their participation in international climate meetings [83]; psychological distance, collective memory, and social engagement in participatory adaptation planning [82]; alternative ways of knowledge production, fostering collective imagination and design of creative solutions to the uncertain scenarios of climate change [81].…”

“…Overall, an emphasis emerges on more-than-rational elements, e.g., relational, emotional, discursive, imaginative and creative processes, e.g., [81,110,113,127], pointing towards a vaster conceptualisation of rationality in context, which demands new sensibilities and ways of learning to be developed [81,113].…”

Intermediary Organizations in Nature Conservation Initiatives: The Case of the EU-Funded LIFE Programme

“…Effective coordination and collaborative dynamics within and among groups implementing environmental activities at sub-national levels can support environmental governance on a higher level by promoting the political learning necessary for a legislative change [92]. One of the main objectives of the LIFE Programme is to support the development, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of relevant union legislation and environmental policy, including that regarding nature and biodiversity, by improving governance at all levels-particularly by enhancing the capacities of public and private actors and the involvement of civil society [62].…”