Transnational governance initiatives (TGIs) are increasingly recognized as central actors in the governing of climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet, their role in linking these domains has yet to be explored. As the climate crisis comes to be increasingly interlinked with the loss of biodiversity, such initiatives are increasingly combining this challenge of climate change with action on biodiversity loss through the deployment of nature-based solutions, with significant consequences for the ways in which the nature problem and its solutions are framed and implemented. Employing a governmentality approach, this research reveals two overarching rationales by TGIs of biodiversity as a means to climate change and “asset-at-risk” that are rendered governable through myriad techniques “at a distance” and “in proximity.” By revealing how biodiversity is made to fit with the climate arena, this research finds that these governable biodiversity spaces could generate rather regrettable solutions along these shifting and unfolding climate–biodiversity frontiers.

Multiple visions for how urbanism can respond to the climate crisis and foster sustainability have emerged on the international agenda, including the ecocity, low-carbon city, smart city, and resilient city. These competing visions have been joined by one deploying “nature-based solutions.” We examine how nature-based solutions are emerging as a linchpin holding together the nature and climate agendas and what this means for where and by whom nature-based solutions are forming part of transnational urban governance. We argue that this field is animated by four frames connecting urban nature and climate: nature for resilience, nature for mitigation, the integrated benefits of nature, and nature first. Diverse actors, from conservation organizations to design firms to transnational municipal networks, draw on these frames and adopt new governance arrangements such that what it means to govern climate in the city is shifting. How this emerging nature–climate governance complex is structured will generate new momentum for governing urban nature over the coming decade.

In this article we examine the emergence and implications of transnational climate-change governance. We argue that although the study of transnational relations has recently been renewed alongside a burgeoning interest in issues of global governance, the nature of transnational governance has to date received less attention. We contend that transnational governance occurs when networks operating in the transnational political sphere authoritatively steer constituents toward public goals . In order to stimulate a more systematic study of the diversity and significance of this phenomenon, the article develops a typology based on the actors involved and their authority—public, private, or hybrid—and the primary governance functions performed in order to steer network constituents—information-sharing, capacity building and implementation, or rule-setting. A comparative discussion of transnational governance networks for climate change illustrates each category and the value of the typology in assessing the multiple mechanisms through which transnational governance occurs. In conclusion, we suggest that our typology provides a useful starting point for future research and reflect on the implications for the study of global affairs.

The governance of climate change has traditionally been conceived as an issue of international co-operation and considered through the lens of regime analysis. Increasingly, scholars of global governance have highlighted the multiple parallel initiatives involving a range of actors at different levels of governance through which this issue is being addressed. In this paper, we argue that this phenomenon warrants a re-engagement with some of the conceptual cornerstones of international studies. We highlight the conceptual challenges posed by the increasing involvement of non-nation-state actors (NNSAs) in the governance of climate change and explore the potential for drawing from alternative theoretical traditions to address these challenges. Specifically, the paper combines insights from neo-Gramscian and governmentality perspectives as a means of providing the critical space required to generate deeper understanding of: (a) the nature of power in global governance; (b) the relationship between public and private authority; (c) the dynamics between structure and agency; and (d) the rationalities and practices of governance.