Aligning subnational climate actions for the new post-Paris climate regime

Abstract

The rise of sub-national actors in global climate governance underscores the need for clear alignment between these efforts and their national counterparts. As these sub-national climate actions are filling gaps in mitigation, adaptation, and financing, among other functions, a critical question is how these efforts complement or overlap with national climate pledges. This consideration is particularly important in the context of the Paris Agreement's mandate for fiveyear review cycles, where national governments will be asked to demonstrate progress towards climate mitigation goals and increase their ambition. In this paper, we argue that alignment-both vertically between multiple jurisdictions and horizontally with external networks and actors-is critical to clarifying climate actions between multiple levels of actors and to maximizing mitigation potential. We use nine case studies to demonstrate the varying degrees and modes of vertical integration between subnational and national climate actors. We find that the case studies embody different styles of vertical alignment, and exhibit significant variation in the degree and direction of vertical alignment within each of these modes. We also find that many case studies rely on horizontally-aligned international networks and coalitions to fill gaps in financial resources or technical support. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate that an additional 1 gigaton carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2020 can be achieved in these nine case studies through stronger alignment that makes it possible to scale sub-national climate actions to the national level. These findings suggest there may be a missed opportunity to realize greater mitigation potential by fostering stronger vertical alignment, and enhancing coordination between horizontal networks of climate action and national governments.

Social Science Perspectives on Drivers of and Responses to Global Climate Change

“…Research in this area also maps out how networks of policy elites are engaging in the climate debate (Fisher, Leifeld, et al 2013;Fisher, Waggle, et al 2013;Fisher et al 2018). Similar claims are made in the social science literature on polycentric governance (Cole 2015;Dorsch and Flachsland 2017;Gillard et al 2017;Hsu et al 2017;Ostrom 2014;Spreng and Sovacool 2016), with some focus on global climate politics since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 (Oberthür 2016;Victor et al 2017). Polycentricity refers to a form of governance with multiple centers of semiautonomous decision making.…”

Urban Informality in the Paris Climate Agreement: Content Analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions of Highly Urbanized Developing Countries

“…Additionally, informal urban settlements, as part of subnational structures, can be key contributors to the commitments of developing countries towards the agreement for both adaptation and mitigation. The Paris Agreement solidified the participation of subnational governments, such as cities and municipalities, in global mitigation and adaptation efforts, continuing the shift towards a polycentric landscape of climate action [75]. The success of this emergent regime would depend, at least partially, on its ability to integrate climate action from non-state and subnational entities (ibid).…”

Holding Back the Storm: Target Populations and State Climate Adaptation Planning in America

“…Post-Paris climate governance envisages a strong role for subnational governments (Hsu, Weinfurter, & Xu, 2017). As the federal government once again distances itself from international climate accords, subnational governments are taking on an even greater role as the de facto U.S. response to climate change (Rabe & Mills, 2017).…”