Fiscal relations in multilevel climate governance: How conditional project grants shape local climate action

Multi‐level Climate Governance: The global system and selected sub‐systems

As nations agreed on a bottom-up approach to establish the Paris Agreement in 2015, Non-state Actors (NSAs) became increasingly acknowledged as key players in the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In a mostly urbanised world, local governments have a major part to play in designing and implementing climate policies that will help overcome carbon lock-in and enable the transition to a sustainable low-carbon future. Transnational municipal networks (TMNs) have a well-documented history of contributing to multilevel climate governance and supporting experiments in local climate action in many countries. In Brazil, urban climate experimentation has increased since 2005 and accelerated after 2015. Based on empirical evidence from a national survey and two Brazilian metropolises, the study demonstrates that TMNs have been drivers of the municipal climate agenda in Brazil, but there is no evidence so far that urban governance experiments have resulted in significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. Furthermore, the collective impact of cities' experimentation on the national climate agenda is yet to be verified. In light of multilevel climate governance and the urban experimentation conceptual framework, we contend that while there is no documented evidence that local climate action has affected Brazil's ability to meet its mitigation goals, cities' paradiplomacy and policy experiments have strengthened a multilevel approach to climate governance and contributed to positive change towards a sustainable transition. Furthermore, a closer look at policies across scales and their interactions will help our understanding of how to improve t'he institutional framework for climate governance in Brazil and secure GHG emission reductions, thus contributing to global goals beyond 2020.

Conceptualizing power in multi-level climate governance

Introduction As climate governance increasingly adopts multilevel approaches, subnational actors play a central role in achieving national and global climate objectives. However, in Nigeria, as in many other developing countries, the role of subnational actors in climate governance remains underexplored. Understanding their institutional readiness is crucial for meeting national climate commitments, including the 2060 net-zero target. This paper presents the first comprehensive assessment of climate awareness, policy, and action across all 36 Nigerian states. Methods Using a mixed-methods design, the study combined document and budget reviews, a national survey of 1,306 respondents from relevant ministries and agencies, and a stakeholder validation workshop with over 600 participants. Indicators examined included climate literacy, policy presence and alignment, budgetary commitments, and inter-agency coordination. Results Findings reveal low climate knowledge among subnational officials, weak public awareness, and limited policy development. Only a handful of states, possess climate policies or action plans, and fewer than 20% have climate-related budget lines. Cross-sectoral collaboration and alignment with national frameworks are also weak. Discussion These gaps expose structural and institutional weaknesses that undermine Nigeria’s multilevel climate governance. Achieving the 2060 net-zero goal requires harmonized subnational frameworks, enhanced capacity-building, and innovative tools—such as performance-based disclosure and rating systems—to incentivize accountability and stimulate stronger state-level climate action. Positioned within debates on multilevel governance, the study highlights Nigeria as a critical test case of how federated system in the Global South can recalibrate institutions to transform symbolic commitments into substantive action.

This chapter deals with the challenge of policy definition, cooperation and coordination in a complex system of multi-level governance faced by decision-makers in international politics today, using the example of international climate governance. The practical, as well as the analytical challenge, of said system of multi-level governance lies in its dynamic structure, which includes the vertical (i.e. domestic and foreign; subnational, national, and international) and horizontal levels (structure of decision-making processes in international institutions) of international politics, the participation of non-state actors, and the inter-linkages and interdependencies between all policy fields and levels involved. More often than not, intentions and interests on the different levels are disparate and difficult to harmonise, which can result in less than ideal policy strategies, are likely to “get lost” in the multi-level governance system. International climate governance and the difficulties with institutionalising an all-encompassing climate protection strategy can be seen as an example of a policy field that is “lost in multi-level governance.” This will be illustrated in the following chapter by analysing five dimensions of climate governance and how they hamper successful climate governance—and thus climate protection—at the international level.

This article sheds light on multi-level climate governance in the particular context of India and scrutinizes the role India’s subnational states play in climate policy. It uses an analytical lens that combines multi-level climate governance and “laboratories of experimentation”. The first part of the article clarifies the analytical concept of the article and deals with the phenomenon of states experimentation in multi-level climate governance structures from a theoretical background. The second part of the article explores India’s multi-level climate governance structure and sheds light on the role of India’s states therein with specific emphasis on the development of renewable energy. The third part looks at the multi-tiered climate action planning processes, and considers how central top-down policies and subnational bottom-up approaches are linked. Asking whether the Indian states do not only act as mere implementers of federal top-down policies, but instead create own initiatives for climate action. The article examines state climate action plans with particular focus on renewable energy initiatives integrated in the plans by asking whether the Indian states do not act solely as mere implementers of federal top-down policies, but instead create their own initiatives for climate action, much like the German Bundesländer, for example. Based on document analysis and interviews the article explores whether India’s states experiment with individual approaches to develop renewable energy which are, tailored to regional specifics, or whether they mainly implement national objectives.

Purpose Local governments play a critical role in addressing climate change through a justice lens to ensure that climate action benefits equity-denied communities who experience disproportionate impacts. This study examines how equity is negotiated and incorporated in collaborative local climate planning and action. Design/methodology/approach We analyzed 12 Canadian cases of local climate action partnerships through document analyses and 55 interviews with local government staff, businesses, NGOs and community organizations. Using an urban climate justice theoretical framework, we identified key themes related to equity goals, actions and obstacles. Findings Equity goals focus on partnership design, as well as impact and process goals, while equity actions focus on governance, Indigenous collaboration, working with underserved groups, engagement, inclusion and equity indicators. Our findings reveal that partnerships that prioritize equity from the start are more effective in planning and implementing equitable climate actions. Persistent obstacles include limited funding, tokenistic engagement and technocentric approaches that undermine equity. Our findings highlight that strong leadership and the institutionalization of equity at vertical and horizontal governance levels are needed to advance climate justice. Originality/value This research refines urban climate justice theory by framing equity as a negotiated process within multistakeholder partnerships. Practically, it offers actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners to institutionalize equity through leadership and structural reforms, and to support community-level climate action for more inclusive climate actions. The findings extend beyond Canada, informing equitable local climate governance globally.

This paper presents an overview of key global developments relevant to local climate and sustainable energy action, and leading the transition to a sustainable energy future. In light of the urgency and necessity for such action, the role of local governments in cities and towns is explored, considering the need for strong leadership, direction and accelerated action. Local climate and energy action are intertwined with sustainable development, embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is unfolding through high impact global initiatives that support local action such as the Global 100% Renewable Energy Cities and Regions Network and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM), as well as through city networks such as ICLEI that provide policy and technical assistance, deal with advocacy, and support integrated Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) of local action. People and leadership, responsibility, innovation, resilience, security and finance are a few key words illustrating how the sustainable energy transition is unfolding today. Cities of all sizes and their local governments are increasingly responding to the call for climate neutrality at the latest by 2050. They are using ICLEI’s GreenClimateCities™ program, with its step-by-step methodology, tools and guidance, to shape their communities’ future. By defining their sustainable energy transition roadmap and finding innovative approaches, local governments are making their cities and towns liveable, resilient and climate neutral. Here the underlying premise is access to affordable, reliable, clean, sustainable energy which is essential for sustainable development, quality of life and a just transition in a changing world where climate change and limited resources frame the context. The transition, when well-managed, offers multiple benefits, such as improved air quality and associated health impacts, reduced and avoided greenhouse gas emissions, and new (local) employment opportunities created, to mention but a few. In combination, these make this transition so relevant and interesting to different types of stakeholders at community level. Mayors, councillors and senior local government leaders have understood this, and are re-defining and implementing the sustainable energy transition in their governmental operations and communities. Yet, local governments acting in their territories—cities and towns of all sizes—do not work in isolation. They are embedded in a national context and are key action partners for other levels of government (subnational state or region, province, national), as closest to the local community and closest to where the action should be. Each level of government should have a clear, specific mandate and role to address climate and energy. However, practice often does not reflect this crucial component, with energy mostly remaining a national responsibility. Only by exploring all forms of renewable energy, including decentralised generation and use, can we achieve a climate neutral future. A constructive approach is needed to define what this could look like, exploring relevant scenarios and fully committing to move away from burning fossil fuels. The Talanoa Dialogues were launched in 2018 to address these issues, among others, through exploring improved multilevel governance and vertical integration. Here we addressed three key questions: “where are we”, “where do we need to go”, and “how do we get there”. Moving from the unique Local Government Climate Roadmap—a major global climate advocacy process—that has helped to set the scene, the focus is now on exploring multilevel governance as a cooperation model between all levels of government, and further mobilising local governments to scale up local climate and energy action. This complex space and relevant developments are addressed in this paper.

Over the last three decades, Bangladesh has implemented various initiatives to address different climate change impacts. In a multi-level governance arrangement, addressing climate change impacts is often constrained by climate change mainstreaming. In Bangladesh, a crucial question that arises is how mitigation and adaptation efforts are addressed at both national and sub-national levels. This paper examines the integration of climate change issues into national, sectoral, and city development plans with a particular focus on Dhaka using a framework developed based on the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) climate change mainstreaming guidelines for national development processes. The review finds evidence that mainstreaming of climate change is strong in national and sectoral development plans and has been incremental since 2002. However, climate change mainstreaming in Dhaka city development plans is moderate, especially in terms of climate risk and opportunity assessment, institutional arrangement, and capacity building for climate action. To augment existing efforts at mainstreaming at the sub-national level, the paper suggests the need to build sub-national level climate capacity with particular attention to institutional coordination and cooperation among agencies at different levels of development planning and to establish a national financing arrangement that allows sub-national agencies to harness climate finance.

Academic attention to local climate policy usually focuses on large-sized cities. Given the climate challenges ahead this seems unjustified. Small and medium-sized cities (SMCs) deserve scholarly attention as well. The main question is: What factors influence climate change policy and local climate actions in SMCs? In this article we present an analytical framework to analyze climate change policy and local climate actions of SMCs. The framework addresses different aspects: policy-input, -throughput, -output, -outcome, characteristics of the local environment, local action arenas, influence by higher government levels, and interaction with climate change issue networks. The framework is used to analyze and compare four case studies of SMCs in the Dutch region of Twente (two urban and two rural municipalities, and addresses both adaptation and mitigation). Results show that both ‘localist’, ‘multi-level’ and issue network membership factors influence local climate policy action. Governance modes discerned concern mostly ‘governing by authority’ and ‘self-governing’. When reflecting on the role of SMCs in climate action the study revealed the importance of local capacity building schemes issued by provincial government, inter-municipal network collaboration, and the potential for local governments to mobilize and organize citizen action.

The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: local climate policies and the 1.5 °C target

Background: Despite the relative lack of climate action at the national level in the USA, local climate action is happening. Our focus is on the motivating reasons, stakeholders, and institutional enabler and barrier factors that are directly relevant to making local climate action happen. Results/Methodology: We report here on the results of a two-phase study of local climate action in California (USA): a set of in-depth case studies, and a subsequent web-based survey of all cities and counties in the state. Conclusions: The motives for local climate action often came from within communities and include both tangible local co-benefits of action, as well as the concept that climate action is the ‘right thing‘ to do. Important factors that enable action include strong local champions, supportive residents, and state and national policies and actions. Important barriers to action include lack of local-government staff time and financial resources.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the current literature and ideas on how local climate change action (both mitigation and adaptation) could be intensified.Design/methodology/approachA literature review of Australian and international academic journals and policy documents on the current views of effective local climate action was conducted. Additional data on Australian grassroots community activities was compiled from the internet, participant observation and secondary sources.FindingsThe paper argues that local climate action is important and three key aspects could provide effective avenues to step‐up local climate action. These three avenues are: increased attention to local adaptation; the linking of adaptation and mitigation efforts together and with other local ecological concerns; and greater engagement with active community members and grassroots community‐initiated climate change actions. These three key aspects could give climate change a local saliency and tangibility, spur more effective action, build community resilience and reduce vulnerability.Research limitations/implicationsResearch is in the explorative stages and, therefore, only tentative conclusions and possible future directions can be suggested.Practical implicationsThe avenues identified to scale‐up local action on climate change could be readily utilised by local governments and/or other interested groups.Originality/valueThe paper disseminates three compelling ways that climate action could be intensified at the local scale, and possibly create greater public engagement and avenues to innovative approaches to tackle climate change.

Mainstreaming climate adaptation and mitigation policy: Towards multi-level climate governance in Melaka, Malaysia

BackgroundEvidence is needed to support local action to reduce the adverse health impacts of climate change and maximise the health co-benefits of climate action. Focused on England, the study identifies priority areas for research to inform local decision making.MethodsFirstly, potential priority areas for research were identified from a brief review of UK policy documents, and feedback invited from public and policy stakeholders. This included a survey of Directors of Public Health (DsPH) in England, the local government officers responsible for public health. Secondly, rapid reviews of research evidence examined whether there was UK evidence relating to the priorities identified in the survey.ResultsThe brief policy review pointed to the importance of evidence in two broad areas: (i) community engagement in local level action on the health impacts of climate change and (ii) the economic (cost) implications of such action. The DsPH survey (n = 57) confirmed these priorities. With respect to community engagement, public understanding of climate change’s health impacts and the public acceptability of local climate actions were identified as key evidence gaps. With respect to economic implications, the gaps related to evidence on the health and non-health-related costs and benefits of climate action and the short, medium and longer-term budgetary implications of such action, particularly with respect to investments in the built environment. Across both areas, the need for evidence relating to impacts across income groups was highlighted, a point also emphasised by the public involvement panel. The rapid reviews confirmed these evidence gaps (relating to public understanding, public acceptability, economic evaluation and social inequalities). In addition, public and policy stakeholders pointed to other barriers to action, including financial pressures, noting that better evidence is insufficient to enable effective local action.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to inform health-centred local action on climate change. More evidence is required on public perspectives on, and the economic dimensions of, local climate action. Investment in locally focused research is urgently needed if local governments are to develop and implement evidence-based policies to protect public health from climate change and maximise the health co-benefits of local action.