Assessing the robustness of the Action Agendas of the Rio Conventions

Robust orchestration of non-state and subnational action is critical for meeting global targets and shaping how people perceive, relate to, and act for climate and nature in an era of socio-environmental emergency. Despite Action Agendas forming a key component of polycentric environmental governance, understanding remains limited about what makes these mechanisms robust. This study assesses the robustness of the Action Agendas of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Marrakech Partnership), the Convention on Biological Diversity (Sharm El-Sheikh to Kunming and Montreal Action Agenda for Nature and People), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Riyadh Action Agenda). Robustness is assessed using a scorecard based on the “5C” principles: Complementary, Catalytic, Collaborative, Comprehensive, and Credible, operationalised through 16 questions and 28 indicators applied to publicly available documentation. The results reveal substantial variation across the Action Agendas: the Marrakech Partnership demonstrates strong catalytic and collaborative capacity but is undermined by low credibility, particularly limited quality control and reporting oversight of the initiatives registered on the Global Climate Action Portal. The CBD’s Action Agenda performs consistently poorly across the five, reflecting a lack of strategic coherence. The nascent Riyadh Action Agenda exhibits promising design features, but robustness appears highly contingent on how governance arrangements are implemented as it moves beyond the planning phase. By operationalising robustness in a transparent and replicable manner, this study contributes an evaluative framework for analysing orchestration mechanisms and identifies key areas for strengthening oversight of non-state actions, strategic coordination, and cross-convention alignment.