By Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, Paul Smoke and Serdar Yilmaz.

Many people, including academic researchers and practitioners, do not see a connection between the fight against climate change and subnational governments. Although subnational governments are important actors in climate change response, their role has not received as much attention as it merits. Subnational governments are often responsible for land use planning and enforcement, water and power utilities, building codes, waste disposal, transport systems and urban management, among others. Subnational governments are also on the front line of disaster response and charged with investing for climate adaptation. In many countries, subnational governments have taken prominent responsibility for climate action when national governments have lagged. Beyond their functional contributions, subnational governments can incubate policy innovation, build consensus, and adjust policies to local needs and circumstances. 

It is surprising that relations between national and subnational governments are often neglected in designing and implementing climate change policy. While it seems evident that vertical and horizontal coordination should improve outcomes, there is in many cases no obvious division of functional responsibilities and or balance between levels of government in climate change action. Although there is well-articulated theory on intergovernmental fiscal relations, the principles for administrative and governance arrangements are less developed, and there is no strong integrated framework to inform the appropriate design of and balance between the range of functions, processes and capacities needed for decentralized climate action. 

Our volume on Decentralized Governance and Climate Change focuses on the need for developing a comprehensive and synthetic analytical framework to bridge multilevel governance and climate change policy and action. It recognizes the challenges posed by locational differences in climate priorities, diversity in the structure and empowerment of intergovernmental systems, the interdependence of administrative, fiscal and governance aspects of climate action, and variations in appropriate forms and degrees of intergovernmental and nongovernmental collaboration. It provides a few observations as an initial basis for considering future efforts in building that much-needed synthetic and comprehensive analytical framework to bridge decentralized governance and the fight against climate change.

First and most fundamentally, collaboration between national actors could generate significant mutual benefits for achieving their respective objectives concurrently. Many countries have national decarbonization and adaptation plans that do not adequately consider the intergovernmental system structure or ongoing reforms. In many countries those in charge of designing and implementing intergovernmental reform may be unaware of the important role subnational governments can play in the fight against climate change. 

Second, there is great potential value in consulting and learning from subnational actors in developing national climate change policy—subnational governments are laboratories of policy design. In particular, much can be gained from information available at the local level and experimentation with innovative solutions by subnational actors. Overly centralized approaches to decarbonization and adaptation may insufficiently reflect local knowledge and fail to gain support from subnational authorities whose cooperation is essential for the success of national strategy. Centrally dominated efforts may also not reflect the diversity of subnational conditions and priorities and overlook constructive reforms already being adopted by subnational governments, such as renewable energy ordinances, low-cost information sharing, or floodplain mapping and early warning systems based on local knowledge. 

Third, there is a need for more robust attention on how to implement subnational climate change action. There is some tendency to follow normative principles in decentralization and prioritize sound design. However, the value of a more contextualized strategic approach, with careful attention to identifying entry points for the implementation of climate action as well as to consider how the roles of different levels of government and other actors may evolve over time. The lack of an integrated conceptual framework and strong empirical evidence, as well as the complex intergovernmental system and climate change landscape noted above, can hinder generalization and the successful application of standardized approaches. 

Fourth, piloting new approaches before fully adopting reforms is often warranted as part of an overall strategy given the uncertainty surrounding climate change drivers, impacts and effective solutions, as well as the effects of contextual variations across and within countries. Use of innovative initiatives by some subnational governments can test new ideas and create a platform for developing and mainstreaming productive approaches and reforms.

Fifth, regular systematic assessment of remedial actions, experiments and partnerships is essential. The evidence produced can be used to identify adjustments and allow climate response to evolve so as to improve and institutionalize good practice, including how different actors work together.  Such a learning approach requires constructive linkages and feedback channels within the intergovernmental system. This type of approach offers potential to attain more ambitious and sustainable climate goals—local, national and global—in the medium and longer term. 

These considerations reinforce the value of appropriately synchronizing climate change and decentralization policies.  Collaboration enhances assessment of shared understanding and points of disagreement regarding the roles of different levels of government in climate action. The varied perspectives and tensions involved will inevitably create challenges, but the process of resolving them can help to advance both the climate change and decentralization agendas if relevant actors work together constructively. Such an approach could also help to inform the development of more effective international development partner support in the Global South.

Jorge Martinez-Vazquez is Emeritus Regents Professor of Economics and founding Director in the Public Finance Research Cluster and International Center for Public Policy at Georgia State University.

Paul Smoke is the Professor of Public Finance and Planning in the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University.

Serdar Yilmaz is Practice Manager, Public Finance and Procurement, Global Governance Practice at The World Bank and Adjunct Faculty at Marmara University.

Decentralized Governance and Climate Change is available in Hardback and eBook.

Learn more here