Advertisement

Strategic cooperation for transnational adaptation: lessons from the economics of climate change mitigation

  • Matteo RoggeroEmail author
  • Leonhard Kähler
  • Achim Hagen
Original Paper

Abstract

The literature on climate adaptation has so far conceptualized it as a domestic issue, to be governed somewhere between the local and the national scale. By contrast, scholars have shown little interest in exploring the case of cross-boundary adaptation spillovers, where adaptation by one country affects other countries. Two decades of the economic literature on climate mitigation may contribute to bridge this research gap because the problem structure of climate mitigation resembles that of adaptation with cross-boundary spillovers. With this in mind, we ask the following research question: Are there lessons to be learned by applying a mitigation perspective to the governance of adaptation with cross-boundary spillovers? After reviewing the relevant adaptation and mitigation literature, the paper applies mitigation insights to an adaptation case with cross-boundary spillovers: climate change-induced eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Insights on coalition structures, side-payments, issue-linkage, and trade sanctions provide novel perspectives on the governance structures in place. To improve cooperation on providing adaptation as a public good, smaller regional governance arrangements could be more effective, European subsidies for pollution control might be redirected, and progress on eutrophication could be made a precondition for cooperation on other areas. These perspectives depart both from the way the Baltic Sea eutrophication problem is addressed at present, and from the way public goods are addressed in the adaptation literature. They show that some lessons can indeed be learned, calling for further research.

Keywords

Transnational adaptation Public goods Climate mitigation Governance arrangements Spillovers Baltic Sea 

List of abbreviations

BSRS

Baltic Sea Region Strategy

EU

European Union

HELCOM

Helsinki Commission

IEA

International Environmental Agreement

WFD

Water Framework Directive

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues at the Resource Economics Group, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Adis Dzebo, Åsa Persson, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on early versions of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahlvik, L., & Pavlova, Y. (2013). A strategic analysis of eutrophication abatement in the Baltic Sea. Environmental & Resource Economics, 56(3), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., Huhtala, A., et al. (2014). Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea—a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(3), 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, A., Meier, H. M., Ripszam, M., Rowe, O., Wikner, J., Haglund, P., et al. (2015). Projected future climate change and Baltic Sea ecosystem management. Ambio, 44(3), 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansink, E., Weikard, H. P., & Withagen, C. (2018). International environmental agreements with support. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asheim, G. B., Froyn, C. B., Hovi, J., & Menz, F. C. (2006). Regional versus global cooperation for climate control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(1), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atteridge, A., & Remling, E. (2018). Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or redistributing it? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1), e500.Google Scholar
  7. Backer, H. (2011). Transboundary maritime spatial planning: A Baltic Sea perspective. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 15(2), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Backer, H., Leppänen, J.-M., Brusendorff, A. C., Forsius, K., Stankiewicz, M., Mehtonen, J., et al. (2010). HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan—a regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5), 642–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett, S. (1994). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 878–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrett, S. (1997). The strategy of trade sanctions in international environmental agreements. Resource and Energy Economics, 19(4), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrett, S. (2001). International cooperation for sale. European Economic Review, 45(10), 1835–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barrett, S. (2013). Local level climate justice? Adaptation finance and vulnerability reduction. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bengtsson, R. (2009). An EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region: Good intentions meet complex challenges. European Policy Analysis, 9, 1–12.Google Scholar
  14. Benzie, M., & Persson, Å. (2019). Governing borderless climate risks: moving beyond the territorial framing of adaptation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09441-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bisaro, A., & Hinkel, J. (2016). Governance of social dilemmas in climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 6, 354–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Böhringer, C., Carbone, J. C., & Rutherford, T. F. (2016). The strategic value of carbon tariffs. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(1), 28–51.Google Scholar
  17. Bollen, J., B. Guay, S. Jamet, and J. Corfee-Morlot (2009). Co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 693. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/co-benefits-of-climate-change-mitigation-policies_5kskp4svfktb.pdf?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpaper%2F224388684356&mimeType=pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  18. Bosello, F., Buchner, B., & Carraro, C. (2003). Equity, development, and climate change control. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(2–3), 601–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(3), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carraro, C., & Marchiori, C. (2004). Endogenous strategic issue linkage in international negotiations. In C. Carraro & V. Fragnelli (Eds.), Game practice and the environment (pp. 65–86). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1993). Strategies for the international protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics, 52(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1997). R&D Cooperation and the Stability of International Environmental Agreements. In C. Carraro (Ed.), International environmental agreements: Strategic policy issues (pp. 71–96). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Chander, P., & Tulkens, H. (1995). A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution. International Tax and Public Finance, 2(2), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chapman, A. D., Darby, S. E., Hồng, H. M., Tompkins, E. L., & Van, T. P. (2016). Adaptation and development trade-offs: Fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province. Mekong Delta. Climatic Change, 137(3–4), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chong, J. (2014). Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation: Progress and challenges. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. d’Aspremont, C., Jacquemin, A., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Weymark, J. A. (1983). On the stability of collusive price leadership. Canadian Journal of Economics, 16(1), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dellink, R. (2011). Drivers of stability of climate coalitions in the STACO model. Climate Change Economics, 2(02), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dodman, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Institutional capacity, climate change adaptation and the urban poor. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ducrotoy, J.-P., & Elliott, M. (2008). The science and management of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea: Natural history, present threats and future challenges. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 57(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duus-Otterström, G. (2016). Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(5), 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dzebo, A. (2019). Effective governance of transnational adaptation initiatives. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09445-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dzebo, A., & Stripple, J. (2015). Transnational adaptation governance: An emerging fourth era of adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 35, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eisenack, K., Moser, S. C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R. J. T., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., et al. (2014). Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Elliott, M., Borja, Á., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Mazik, K., Birchenough, S., Andersen, J. H., et al. (2015). Force majeure: Will climate change affect our ability to attain Good Environmental Status for marine biodiversity? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Elmgren, R., Blenckner, T., & Andersson, A. (2015). Baltic Sea management: Successes and failures. Ambio, 44(3), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. European Court of Auditors. (2016). Combating eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed. Special Report. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_03/SR_BALTIC_EN.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  37. Felder, S., & Rutherford, T. F. (1993). Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: The consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(2), 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Folmer, H., & van Mouche, P. (1994). Interconnected games and international environmental problems. II. Annals of Operations Research, 54(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Folmer, H., van Mouche, P., & Ragland, S. (1993). Interconnected games and international environmental problems. Environmental & Resource Economics, 3(4), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Friedland, R., Neumann, T., & Schernewski, G. (2012). Climate change and the Baltic Sea action plan: Model simulations on the future of the western Baltic Sea. Journal of Marine Systems, 105, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grasso, M. (2006). An ethics-based climate agreement for the South Pacific Region. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 6(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gren, M. (2008). Adaptation and mitigation strategies for controlling stochastic water pollution: An application to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 66(2), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hagen, A. & Eisenack, K. (2019). Climate clubs vs. single coalitions: the ambition of international environmental agreements. Climate Change Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007819500118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hagen, A., Kähler, L., & Eisenack, K. (2017). Transnational environmental agreements with heterogeneous actors. In M. Ö. Kayalica, S. Cagatay, & H. Mihci (Eds.), Economics of international environmental agreements: A critical approach (pp. 79–96). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hagen, A. & Schneider, J. (2017). Boon or bane? Trade sanctions and the stability of international environmental agreements. Oldenburg Discussion Papers in Economics V-403-17, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany. https://uol.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wire/fachgebiete/vwl/V-403-17.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  46. Hassler, B. (2017). Transnational environmental collective action facing implementation constraints—the case of nutrient leakage in the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(4), 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hedlund, J., Fick, S., Carlsen, H., & Benzie, M. (2018). Quantifying transnational climate impact exposure: New perspectives on the global distribution of climate risk. Global Environmental Change, 52, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. HELCOM. (2018). State of the Baltic SeaSecond HELCOM holistic assessment 20112016. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 155. http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HELCOM_State-of-the-Baltic-Sea_Second-HELCOM-holistic-assessment-2011-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  49. Hoel, M. (1991). Global environmental problems: The effects of unilateral actions taken by one country. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huttunen, I., Lehtonen, H., Huttunen, M., Piirainen, V., Korppoo, M., Veijalainen, N., et al. (2015). Effects of climate change and agricultural adaptation on nutrient loading from Finnish catchments to the Baltic Sea. Science of the Total Environment, 529, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., et al. (2009). Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jim, C., & Chen, W. Y. (2008). Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johannesson, K., Smolarz, K., Grahn, M., & André, C. (2011). The future of Baltic Sea populations: Local extinction or evolutionary rescue? Ambio, 40(2), 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jones, H. P., Hole, D. G., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2012). Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Juhola, S., Glaas, E., Linnér, B.-O., & Neset, T.-S. (2016). Redefining maladaptation. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Lundberg, C. (2016). Eutrophication and the ecosystem approach to management: A case study of Baltic Sea environmental governance. In M. Gilek, M. Karlsson, S. Linke, & K. Smolarz (Eds.), Environmental governance of the Baltic Sea (pp. 21–44). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kay, K. (2014). Europeanization through biodiversity conservation: Croatia’s bid for EU accession and the Natura 2000 designation process. Geoforum, 54, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kistin, E. J., & Ashton, P. J. (2008). Adapting to change in transboundary rivers: An analysis of treaty flexibility on the Orange-Senqu River Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(3), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Klein, R. J. (2010). Linking adaptation and development finance: A policy dilemma not addressed in Copenhagen. Climate and Development, 2(3), 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Křenová, Z., & Kindlmann, P. (2015). Natura 2000–Solution for Eastern Europe or just a good start? The Šumava National Park as a test case. Biological Conservation, 186, 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2009). Adaptation to floods and droughts in the Baltic sea basin under climate change. Boreal Environment Research, 14, 193–203.Google Scholar
  62. Lesnikowski, A., Ford, J., Biesbroek, R., Berrang-Ford, L., Maillet, M., Araos, M., et al. (2017). What does the Paris Agreement mean for adaptation? Climate Policy, 17(7), 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lessmann, K., Kornek, U., Bosetti, V., Dellink, R., Emmerling, J., Eyckmans, J., et al. (2015). The stability and effectiveness of climate coalitions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 62(4), 811–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lessmann, K., Marschinski, R., & Edenhofer, O. (2009). The effects of tariffs on coalition formation in a dynamic global warming game. Economic Modelling, 26(3), 641–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liverman, D. (2016). US National climate assessment gaps and research needs: Overview, the economy and the international context. Climatic Change, 135(1), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Magnan, A. K., Schipper, E. L. F., Burkett, M., Bharwani, S., Burton, I., Eriksen, S., et al. (2016). Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(5), 646–665.Google Scholar
  67. Markowska, A., & Żylicz, T. (1999). Costing an international public good: The case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 30(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marrouch, W., & Ray Chaudhuri, A. (2016). International environmental agreements: Doomed to fail or destined to succeed? A review of the literature. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 9(3–4), 245–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McLaughlin Mitchell, S. (2006). Introduction to special issue: Conflict and cooperation over international rivers. Political Geography, 25, 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mohr, E., & Thomas, J. P. (1998). Pooling sovereign risks: The case of environmental treaties and international debt. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Moser, S. C., & Hart, J. A. F. (2015). The long arm of climate change: Societal teleconnections and the future of climate change impacts studies. Climatic Change, 129(1–2), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Moss, T. (2012). Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: Implementing the EU water framework directive. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., & Rivington, M. (2013). Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation: A new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nordhaus, W. (2015). Climate clubs: Overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. The American Economic Review, 105(4), 1339–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Osmani, D., & Tol, R. S. (2010). The case of two self-enforcing international agreements for environmental protection with asymmetric countries. Computational Economics, 36(2), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Papin, M. (2019). Transnational municipal networks: Harbingers of innovation for global adaptation governance? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09446-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Persson, Å. (2011). Institutionalising climate adaptation finance under the UNFCCC and beyond: Could an adaptation ‘market’ emerge? Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper (2011-03). https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/Adaptation/sei-wp-2011-03-adaptation-commodification.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  78. Persson, Å. & Dzebo, A. (2019). Introduction to the special issue: global and transnational governance of climate adaptation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09440-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pielke, R., Jr., Prins, G., Rayner, S., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Climate change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature, 445(7128), 597–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Piwowarczyk, J., Hansson, A., Hjerpe, M., Chubarenko, B., & Karmanov, K. (2012). Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: A cross-country analysis of institutional stakeholder perceptions. Ambio, 41(6), 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sælen, H. (2016). Side-payments: An effective instrument for building climate clubs? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(6), 909–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sandler, T. (1998). Global and regional public goods: A prognosis for collective action. Fiscal Studies, 19(3), 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sandler, T. (2006). Regional public goods and international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 1(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sida (2019) A healthier Baltic Sea with improved wastewater treatment. Online Article. https://www.sida.se/English/where-we-work/Europe/Russia/examples-of-results/a-healthier-baltic-sea-with-improved-wastewater-treatment/. Accessed 6 February 2019.
  85. Smit, B. & Pilifosova, O. (2001). Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. 877–912. https://library.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/docs/27_WGIITAR_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2019.
  86. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Subramanian, N., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Addressing cross-border environmental displacement: When can international treaties help? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tigre, M. A. (2019). Building a regional adaptation strategy for Amazon countries. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09443-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weikard, H.-P., Dellink, R., & Van Ierland, E. (2010). Renegotiations in the Greenhouse. Environmental & Resource Economics, 45(4), 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wu, J., & Thill, J.-C. (2018). Climate change coalition formation and equilibrium strategies in mitigation games in the post-Kyoto Era. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(4), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations