Author: Ana Raquel Dias
Introduction
Global climate governance is a fast-changing landscape with growing efforts by a wide range of actors. Despite considerable proliferating literature recognizing climate agency beyond state-based jurisdictions, little research addresses regional climate action in this domain.
Noticing the latest thriving literature related to global climate governance, regional governments remain overlooked when compared to other actors. This article reviews the current state of the art while pointing out the need for conceptual, theoretical, and empirical studies on regional climate action.
Focused on global climate governance-related literature and noticing a literature gap, the text carries a short analysis of transnational governance, polycentricity, and leadership followed by the reasoning for further research on the role of regional actors in the field.
Global Climate Governance: A (brief) Literature Review
To Jagers and Stripple (2003, p. 385), global climate governance concerns “all purposeful mechanisms and measures aimed at steering social systems towards preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the risks posed by climate change”. Scholars (Jordan et al., 2015; Coen et al., 2020; Cittadino et al., 2022) acknowledge that such a diverse and multileveled system has expanded its activities beyond the national level.
To unravel the complex reality of global climate governance, different sub-disciplines concentrate on understanding specific emerging dynamics. Among these, transnational governance regards networks operating in a transnational sphere (across state borders) to achieve climate-related goals (Bulkley et al., 2014); polycentricity[1] considers different entities at different scales who interact in a specific policy under no hierarchical structures (Ostrom, 2010a); climate leadership studies the agency of actors who act as agents of change by influencing climate governance (Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017).
Significant contributions have described and explained the structural intricacies of global climate governance. Nonetheless, there is still a focus on conceptual and theoretical developments while observations on the new actors who navigate this context are limited.
Transnational Governance: Cross-border Climate Action
In 1971 Keohane and Nye noticed cross-border transactions not controlled by traditional state approaches. Yet, only throughout the 2000s did transnational governance (TNG) consider dynamics among states, intergovernmental organizations, and nonstate actors who operate across national borders (Roger and Dauvergne, 2016). Climate change is an issue within TNG analysis as a complex phenomenon that spans across borders and scales in need of vertical and horizontal coordination (Andonova et al., 2009).
Recently, as climate become a central agenda, there was an important proliferation of literature in climate politics endorsing a TNG viewpoint. From a transnational perspective, Bulkeley et al. (2014) is a relevant work that provides a general but exhaustive analysis of climate change. Its research considers transnational climate change governance in the broad global climate governance domain by providing a comprehensive analysis of its features, such as legitimacy, authority, effectiveness, and impacts, among others. Similarly, Pattberg and Stripple (2014) reconceptualized the notion of transnational climate governance with high consideration for the public–private spheres of authority. Additionally, Andonova et al. (2018) provided a conceptual framework to explore the interplay between transnational and domestic politics while also regarding the role of cities, non-governmental organizations, companies, carbon markets, and regulations.
TNG carries a relevant point of analysis on climate change however, there is still much to be explored. Most research has been dedicated to the development of theoretical and conceptual knowledge on the phenomenon of climate change per se. Empirical observations have been limited to the mapping and classification of transnational initiatives with few analyses of the involved actors.
Polycentricity: Climate Action Beyond the State
Firstly mentioned in metropolitan governance during the 1960s, polycentricity is well-known for describing today’s global climate governance. In the post-Kyoto period, the term was rescued by Elinor Ostrom (2010a), to express that although multilateralism among states is important, it is insufficient in climate mitigation. As such, polycentricity describes the potential and co-benefits of climate actions occurring at multiple scales through multiple governing authorities that, independently, make norms and rules regarding climate change.
Although the work of Ostrom (2010a; 2010b) was a pioneer in adopting polycentricity to climate change, the post-Paris Agreement research has developed its terms. In this context, Dorsch and Flachsland (2017) worked on the key features and mechanisms of polycentricity in terms of mitigation efforts. Jordan et al. (2015; 2018), however, revived Ostrom’s framework more fully by unraveling the landscape of climate governance under a polycentric prism and by testing her theoretical claims. Jordan et al. (2018) were particularly exhaustive by contemplating an analytical and conceptual study, but overviewed actions taken by supranational (the UNFCCC), national, cities, and local entities, and, finally, transnational dynamics.
Additionally, a few contributions considered urban actors. Hofstad and Vedeld (2021) worked on urban climate leadership and the factors contributing to effective polycentric governance by looking at the relationships between urban leadership, climate goal-setting, and institutional design. Cortes et al. (2022), on the other hand, addressed how different climate city networks relate and function as interconnected, yet independent, decision-making centers.
Climate Leadership: Agents of Change
Climate leadership concerns actors in the international system who gather followers to adopt innovative climate measures, therefore, influencing global climate governance (Wurzel et al., 2021). Although early insights focused on powerful individuals (Burns, 1978), and states (Young, 1991), there is a renewed focus on sub-state, and non-state actors of influence in the governance of climate change (Bäckstrand et al., 2017; Jernnäs and Linnér, 2019; Hsu et al., 2020).
Liefferink and Wurzel (2017) were crucial in developing a logic that would also apply to non-state actors: (1) conceptual clarifications (leaders, pioneers, laggards, and followers); (2) reorganizing analytical distinctions (actors’ positioning according to internal and external ambitions); (3) distinguishing leadership types (action strategies). Also, Wurzel et al. (2019), and Wurzel et al. (2021) provided a theoretical comprehension by noting how polycentric contexts are favorable for the performance of climate leadership. Despite the importance of these clarifications and distinctions, it remains unclear the differences between leaders and pioneers regarding its expression and purpose as it is envisioned as an end in itself.
Nonetheless, the above-mentioned research allowed further systematic analysis: Torney (2019) considered the relationship between climate leaders and followers in Paris’ polycentric context; Hofstad and Vedeld (2021), developed an understanding of city climate leadership in a polycentric context; while Benulic et al. (2022) analyzed perceptions of the Swedish state and non-state actors’ perspective on climate leadership.
Regional Actors in Global Climate Governance: Why Consider?
Regardless of the perspective, scholars suggest that successful global climate governance depends on the integration of non-state and subnational entities (Hsu et al., 2017). Vertical (i.e., coordination of policies between different levels of government), and horizontal alignment (i.e., the connection of peer actors through networks of transnational climate governance) enhance policy coherence to match the phenomenon of climate change (spans across borders and scales) (Andonova et al., 2009). Being a recent acknowledgment, little research paid the need attention to the agency of actors, especially regions.
Although climate goals are internationally dealt with, implementation is done by each state and their respective subnational entities. According to Galarraga et al. (2011), regional governments are essential in the implementation of global climate targets: (1) regions are often the main implementing level for global agreements on climate policies; (2) they are closer to societal grounds to tailor actions and therefore, have a strategic position to establish links between the different policy areas concerning the coordination of climate policies; (3) regions may also guarantee more effective policy implementation as the impacts of climate change vary each unit is aware of its proper strategy. Equally relevant, decentralized states or federated regions, have considerable legislative/administrative powers of climate-related selected sectors. California reflects an example with a prominent record of coordinated climate policies and has, inclusively, filled policy voids of national policy during Trump’s administration (Leffel, 2018).
By their will, many regional governments are (1) collaborating with other actors in direct support of the Paris Agreement; (2) pursuing subnational diplomacy efforts and enrolling in transnational networks; (3) endorsing innovative policy solutions that demonstrate potential in reducing greenhouse gases (Ibidem). By overlooking regional climate action, important phenomena on the structural intricacies of global climate governance are being missed by the literature.
Conclusion
Considering the fast-paced evolution of global climate governance structures beyond the state, attention to the full scope of alternative actors who are shaping climate agency is required.
This work briefly reviewed three main subdisciplines that consider specific dynamics of global climate governance: transnational governance, polycentricity, and leadership. As noticed, the field focused on theoretical and conceptual developments while the still limited empirical analysis has briefly acknowledged cities and the private sector.
This work notes, however, that regional actors, particularly federal ones, are making their case as actors of local implementation but also as actors of global-reaching influence (Giudicelli, 2022). More than demonstrating their potential contributions to climate action, regions have been claiming space of political authority in foreign affairs (Leffel, 2018) which makes them subjects of research interest. Awareness of regional climate action will tell us more about global climate governance and the international system as a whole.
[1] Policentricity is the opposite of monocentricity which denotes action by the state as a unitary power.
Ana Dias is a Ph.D candidate in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho, Portugal. She is also a research collaborator at CICP – Research Center in Political Science. Her work is currently focused on unraveling the dynamics of global governance, more particularly, the emergence of regional leadership in climate change under the Paris Agreement.
Email: id9204@uminho.pt
ORCID: 0000-0002-5504-5930
Note: The author acknowledges that this study was conducted at the Research Center in Political Science (UIDB/CPO/00758/2020), University of Minho and was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds.
