The first ever Global Stocktake is scheduled to conclude during COP28 and aims to assess progress on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and the means of implementation. However, the Global Stocktake runs the risk of overestimating progress by overlooking the symbolic dimensions of climate change adaptation policy.
Current adaptation tracking approaches are designed to represent process, output, and outcome indicators for specific policy goals and targets1. And whilst adaptation tracking scholarship recognizes a number of strengths and weaknesses in current approaches, existing frameworks fail to account for the symbolic dimensions of adaptation policies. The study of symbolism in public policy emphasizes the discursive and political intentions and meaning in policy texts, reports and other forms of communication. Explicit attention to these dimensions is lacking in recent adaptation tracking approaches, which largely emphasize instrumental dimensions of policies and convey a rational view of the policy process. This undermines how accurate the results of the Global Stocktake are and raises questions how useful its findings are for increasing and accelerating countries’ ambitions and actions.
The importance of symbolic dimensions of policy
There is a long-standing scholarship that studies the positive and negative influence of symbols and symbolism on governmental efforts to solve complex societal problems. All policies have symbolic dimensions, which are recognized as powerful means to shape public discourse, set political agendas, and communicate both new and competing ideas, principles, and values2.
On the one hand, symbolic dimensions of policy often set the stage for innovative changes in substantive policy-making, and even though it might have limited practical impact, it can be highly effective on a socio-political level. The inclusion of the 1.5 °C target in the Paris Agreement, for example, formally recognized the existential risks facing highly vulnerable socio-ecological systems at even low levels of global warming3. This encouraged the adoption of accelerated emissions reduction pathways to meet stricter carbon budgets. Highly symbolic policies can also be an outcome of political contestation, providing an opportunity for compromise among different competing interests. Finally, symbolism can play a role in maintaining continuity and support for new policy goals, which will be essential to building stable pathways that lead us toward decarbonization and a climate-resilient future.
On the other hand, symbolic policies can constrain the tangible realization of goals where policymakers use them as substitutes for meaningful policy action4. Indeed, some policies are not intended to directly achieve outcomes of societal interest5. For example, symbolic policies can embody “performative seriousness” satiating public demand for action on an issue without demanding significant behavioral change6. They also carry the potential to create a false sense of accomplishment that results in public cynicism and erodes public trust in government where policy outcomes do not match the scope of the rhetoric that surrounds them. Moreover, Howlett7 argues that policymakers may be driven by “malicious or venal motivations” and therefore set policy goals and targets that are geared towards actions such as free-riding or rent-seeking to obtain special advantages.
Assessing the symbolic dimension of policies
Different approaches and perspectives exist to study the symbolic dimensions of policy, many informed by social constructivist and others by a more positivist approach. Constructivist approaches recognize, for example, the intractability of symbolism in policy dynamics, the role of symbols and language, the social construction of its performative function, and the impact it has on for instance perception and legitimization of political action. Such research often revolves around questions about why certain policy choices are made, understanding the underlying norms, value, and motives for setting certain policy targets, analyzing which political strategies are used, or unpacking why symbolic policy-making is so appealing to politicians8,9.
Research on symbolism in the positivist tradition helps us to understand the relationship between policy goals and instruments, the role of interests and institutional design in shaping policy choice, and the effects of symbolism on policy outcomes. Policy design studies, for example, tackle questions about the conceptualization of policy mixes, measuring longitudinal changes in the composition of policy mixes, and attributing changes in key outcomes to policy action10.
The symbolic dimensions of policies have received some attention in the broader environmental policy and climate mitigation literatures, which identified examples like greenwashing, formulating “distraction” policies and other delay tactics, emissions accounting schemes, and national climate change legislation11,12,13,14. However, how symbolism translates into global stocktaking is hardly explored.
Bring symbolic policy into the Global Stocktake
There are several important reasons for explicitly including symbolism in the Global Stocktake and climate change adaptation tracking more broadly.
First, understanding the symbolic dimensions of policy goals and instruments helps to understand and explain the gap between policy adoption and progress (or lack thereof) on achieving key outcomes like vulnerability reduction or resilience-building. It sheds light on whether the adaptation gap is driven by good or bad intentions of elite politicians (i.e., symbolic policy-making), is a consequence of lacking resources to implement ambitious policies, or more broadly implementation failure. Such understanding is critical to explore more effective ways to close the gap.
Second, there is the challenge of accountability. Existing tracking frameworks tend to give credit to climate actions that have little tangible ability to reduce climate vulnerability and risk. Furthermore, the earliest generation of adaptation tracking research largely treated different types of adaptation policy instruments as equivalent with respect to goal implementation, for example, giving equal weight to regulatory changes and public awareness campaigns15. Similarly, intentions of policy actions are often included in measurements of actual on-the-ground progress16. Portraying an inflated picture of progress in the midst of rapidly worsening climate change impacts is dangerous, undermines public confidence in the international climate regime, and questions about the usefulness of the Global Stocktake.
Third, exercises like the Global Stocktake offer an opportunity for critical reflection and learning about what works and why17. Confronting the consequences of symbolism in adaptation policy, and understanding its positive and negative influence, is essential for this type of reflection and learning.
Given the political sensitivity of symbolism, however, developing a strong independent research focus on identifying and explaining the symbolic dimensions of adaptation policy is essential for a more critical perspective on adaptation progress. Centering the topic of symbolism in adaptation tracking governance and policy research programs would contribute a much-needed political lens on adaptation tracking. Such research could also inform future scientific assessments, including the IPCC AR7 cycle.
Clearly, symbolism will play a crucial role in the context of the Global Stocktake and should be acknowledged and considered seriously in efforts to track progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation, as well as other national, regional, and local initiatives to track progress. Symbolic dimensions of adaptation policies are not only relevant because of the performative and symbolic nature of the Global Stocktake itself but also because of its intended role in generating heightened ambition for countries to adapt.
After all, climate impacts and risks continue to outpace the current rate of adaptation, and evidence of maladaptation, adaptation limits, and failed adaptation actions is emerging across the globe. Consequently, governments, civil society, and the scientific community are increasingly calling for more ambitious and transformational adaptation to start closing the adaptation gap18. But if we continue to fail to understand the role of symbolism in climate change adaptation policy, its drivers, and effects, these calls run the risk of being met with mostly symbolic action that fails to close the adaptation gap.
Data availability
No primary data was collected for this paper.
References
Adaptation Committee (2021). Approaches to reviewing the overall progress made in achieving the global goal on adaptation. Technical paper. Document AC/2021/TP/GGA, April 2021. https://unfccc.int/documents/258955. UNFCCC secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Edelman, M. J. Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail (Academic Press, 1963).
Cointe, B. & Guillemot, H. A history of the 1.5 °C target. WIREs Clim. Change 14, e824 (2023).
Gustafsson, F. Symbolic and pseudo policies as responses to diffusion of power. Policy Sci. 15, 269–287 (1983).
Boussaguet, L. & Faucher, F. Beyond a ‘Gesture’: the treatment of the symbolic in public policy analysis. French Politics 18, 189–205 (2020).
Newig, J. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environ. Politics 16, 276–296 (2007).
Howlett, M. Avoiding a Panglossian Policy Science: the need to deal with the darkside of policy-maker and policy-taker behaviour. Public Integrity 24, 306–318 (2022).
Blühdorn, I. Sustaining the unsustainable: symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environ. Politics 16, 251–275 (2007).
Baker, S. Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environ. Politics 16, 297–317 (2007).
Krause, R. Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection. Environ. Plann. C Govern. Policy 29, 46–62 (2011).
Nash, S. L. & Steurer, R. Taking stock of Climate Change Acts in Europe: living policy processes or symbolic gestures? Clim. Policy 19, 1052–1065 (2019).
Ruiz-Blanco, S., Romero, S. & Fernandez-Feijoo, B. Green, blue or black, but washing—what company characteristics determine greenwashing? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24, 4024–4045 (2022).
Carton, W., Hougaard, I.-M., Markusson, N. & Lund, J. F. Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? WIREs Clim. Change 14, e826 (2023).
Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).
Lesnikowski, A., Ford, J., Biesbroek, R., Berrang-Ford, L. & Heymann, J. National-level progress on adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 261–264 (2016).
Leiter, T. Do governments track the implementation of national climate change adaptation plans? An evidence-based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 125, 179–188 (2021).
Canales, N. et al. Assessing adaptation progress for the global stocktake. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 413–414 (2023).
UNEP. Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too Little, Too Slow—Climate Adaptation Failure Puts World at Risk. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2022 (2022).
Acknowledgements
The Dutch Research Council (NWO-VIDI “High ambitions, (s)low implementation? The politics of tracking adaptation to climate change” Grant number VI.Vidi.211.132) supported the work of R.B.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed equally in the conception, design, and writing of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Biesbroek, R., Lesnikowski, A. Unpacking symbolic policy-making for the first Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. npj Clim. Action 2, 50 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00090-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00090-1
This article is cited by
-
Integrating science and the arts to deglobalise climate change adaptation
Nature Communications (2024)