Executive summary
Political co-operation is crucial to addressing climate change. Councils in England are taking innovative steps to tackle climate change, including declaring climate emergencies, developing action plans and rolling out demonstrator projects. However, they also face significant challenges, such as a lack of dedicated funding and uncertainty over financing options, among other things. The Local Government Association (LGA) recognises the importance of local government in delivering impactful climate action that helps to create prosperous communities. The LGA also acknowledges that effective support from national government is essential. There have been multiple calls for greater clarity over the role of local government in implementing climate action and a need for improved coordination between the national and local levels.
This report explores the governance arrangements in five case study countries, to understand how they structure and govern their response to climate change. The report draws out key insights and recommendations for England. Each case study country was selected for strategic reasons and potential learnings:
- The Netherlands is an EU country, with decentralisation of powers to provincial and municipal governments and a strong national focus on climate adaptation.
- Norway is a non-EU Nordic country with a dedicated national climate funding mechanism, and Oslo pioneered the climate budgeting approach to governing and implementing climate action.
- New Zealand passed legislation in 2022 that local governments must “have regard to” national adaptation and mitigation plans when preparing local plans, as an example of mandated multi-level coordination.
- South Korea has a mayoral system unique in East Asia and adopted a Local Autonomous System framing decentralisation.
- The United States of America is the one federal country included in the study (the rest are unitary) and represents an extreme example of devolution to cities and local governments.
Desktop research and interviews with experts based in each of the selected case study countries revealed learnings for England across different climate action sectors and in key aspects of governance, including local level autonomy, national policies and legislation, integration between national and local action, funding and resources, and sub-national/regional partnership structures. Highlights from the key findings within these categories are set out below. For the full narrative around these conclusions, refer to Section 3 of this report.
National policies and legislations
National climate policies, legislations, and programmes should be explicit about the intended role for local government.
- Findings around national policies and legislation primarily focused on the need for national government to recognise the important role of local government in delivery of climate action on the ground (and the need to be sufficiently resourced as such), and to clearly define these roles and responsibilities in national climate action policies, legislations, and programmes.
- Examples from the case study countries relating to this included Norway’s current approach to onshore wind development and taxation, the Netherlands’ approaches to identifying areas for renewable energy generation, legal frameworks to help define preferential (and opposed) cases for solar PV, and the use of formal Climate Agreements to provide clarity over actions, roles and responsibilities to deliver on climate action.
- A particular case highlighted for England is around strategic energy planning and the emerging but voluntary adoption of a Local Area Energy Planning (LAEP) approach as well as the forthcoming role of Regional Energy Strategic Planners (RESPs) and how this might support a nationally coherent approach that considers system-wide opportunities and fairly distributes the benefits.
Local level autonomy
Local government should be enabled by national government to take more ambitious opportunities locally, and to apply locally relevant decision frameworks where most relevant.
- Findings around the degree of local level autonomy in other places evidenced that where this is supported well by national or state-level government and set within the context of overall coherency and effective collaboration, it can be very successful in driving up ambition on climate action and enabling local government to find novel approaches including for funding and financing. This was supported in particular by examples from the Netherlands and the USA.
- This is particularly relevant to local authorities in England, many of whom have set climate targets that are more ambitious than the UK-wide government target of net-zero by 2050; however, may struggle to deliver on these targets without clear support and enablement at a national level.
- Whilst there are recognised challenges that come with geographically patchwork approaches and heterogeneity of regulations and policies across different localities, there are ways to support more locally focused, ambitious and appropriate actions, plans and policies whilst maintaining some degree of consistency in approach – this can be supported both by horizontal collaboration, largely independent of central government action – or (ideally) also enabled by strategic support and co-ordination from national government.
- Examples are also highlighted where local level autonomy has not been enabled and, combined with other factors (such as narrow focus of objectives), this has resulted in lack of effective action on certain climate topics.
Integration between national and local
Vertical integration and coordination are key to ensuring clear collaboration.
- In terms of the level of integration between national and local level climate action, and successful examples of co-ordination around this, good examples involved dedicated effort to come together (vertical integration) right from the earliest stages to ensure buy-in and deliverability of any final plan and actions.
- Examples of integrated land-use and transport planning in Norway, harmonised environmental zones in the Netherlands, and New Zealand’s approach to delivering its national forestry plan, illustrate the various ways in which vertical integration is being demonstrated with success in other places.
- A particular opportunity in England to demonstrate the potential for better vertical integration could be around land use and resource management, for example through developing a multi-functional land-use framework.
Funding and resources
Local governments can account for negative externalities while funding a just transition.
- There is an increasing number of examples of funding mechanisms that deliberately seek to address negative externalities (negative impacts that neither the provider nor the acquirer are ordinarily required to fully pay for or address – such as the environmental impacts from polluting activities) and create a self-sustaining source of funding for climate action in the process. Whilst many of the examples are state or national government led, many of these then directly support and fund local government climate action.
- There are also emerging examples of local governments and municipalities finding ways to use their abilities to raise local taxes or apply levies to generate and ring-fence funding for climate action, and similar ‘self-sustaining’ models that address negative externalities of our existing systems could be applied – however it is recognised that in England, local powers to generate revenue like this are still fairly limited.
- Central government can enable more flexible access to funds for climate action and allow for more flexible use of funds. One of the challenges that local governments in England face when it comes to funding and resources is the lack of flexibility in terms of both access to and use of central government funding for climate action, which is most commonly distributed through competitive funding schemes. One of the best examples of an alternative model of distributing national funds for local government-led climate action was observed to be the Norwegian Klimasats fund, which allows applications throughout the year, is flexible in terms of what it can be used to deliver, and by requiring local match-funding also ensures a sense of local ownership.
Central government can provide more certainty on the allocation of climate action funds.
- Finally, some of the other countries studied demonstrated good examples of national government providing greater certainty and consistency around funding through significant nation-wide delivery programmes, and dedicated agreements that set out a clear expectation around cost of delivery and roles / responsibilities. There are also examples where the allocation of national funds to a specific municipality is linked directly to their ambitions as documented in, for example, a dedicated Climate Agreement. This can provide both an incentive for ambitious planning at the local level, as well as a clearer route from allocation of funding to delivering results.
Sub-national and regional partnership structures
Horizontal coordination and collaboration play a key role.
- Alongside considering the governance arrangements between national and local government around climate action, through this work we also came across many interesting examples in every country demonstrating the importance of horizontal integration and peer-to-peer collaboration at a local level. Benefits of strengthening this level of collaboration include increased dissemination and sharing of best practice, the strength of united local voices, and more effective facilitation of coordinated action at a local to regional scale. In some cases, this has been a direct response to the lack of support from higher tiers of government and has demonstrated success in the face of such challenges. Collaboration and influence are also important mechanisms to drive action in sectors and areas which are beyond the direct control of local government, including cross-boundary and system-wide issues.
- In England there are various opportunities for increased horizontal co-ordination, depending on the local context – from local/regional alliances to the role of combined authorities where these exist, and county councils - which are also recognised as a possible convenor in this space.
Introduction
Aims and rationale
Multi-level co-operation is key to addressing climate change; and there is an increasing recognition of the importance of multi-level climate governance – most recently demonstrated by the launch at COP28 of a dedicated international coalition for high-ambition multi-level partnerships. In England, local governments are accelerating and innovating on climate action; many have declared climate emergencies and followed up by developing climate action plans and strategies, and rolling out demonstrator projects. However, they face significant challenges, including a lack of dedicated funding and uncertainty over existing and future opportunities for financing climate action, among other things. Competing priorities, local differences in how risks, impacts and transitional challenges are felt, and an ever-changing policy landscape make it hard to plan and deliver effective action in local areas in England.
The Local Government Association (LGA) understands how important the role of local government is to deliver efficient, equitable climate action that helps create prosperous communities; and also recognises that this cannot be done without effective support from national government. This view is supported by official reports and briefings from a number of other respected organisations making similar recommendations regarding the need for improved multi-level cooperation, including clearer roles and responsibilities, more coherent policies, and better alignment within and between decision making frameworks. The National Audit Office, in its 2021 report on Local Government and Net Zero in England, identified challenges including a lack of clarity over the role of local governments, and a need for more joined-up communication between local and national government departments. Better local-national co-ordination was also a key recommendation in the Climate Change Committee’s 2023 report to Parliament on progress in reducing emissions; and was highlighted in the Government’s own independent review of net zero which suggested that a new relationship is required between central and local government to enable effective local delivery. These recommendations are equally applicable to adaptation as they are to decarbonisation.
There are many ways this could take shape, and in order to support these ambitions it is useful to have a clear understanding of what works well elsewhere, and why – what are the elements of governance, financing, collaboration and co-operation that need to be designed in to our current system to give local authorities in England the best conditions for successful action on climate change – both in terms of reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of unavoidable changes in climate.
The focus of this research was on the governance arrangements which support and enable climate action at the local level, rather than examples of best practice climate action itself. The aims were twofold:
- To understand how climate action is governed in selected case study countries;
- To develop strategic recommendations for England detailing how multi-level cooperation and coordination in climate action could be improved.
Report structure
The report is structured as follows:
- Section 2 presents an overview of the five case study countries selected for this report, setting out an overview of their climate and governance related metrics, their multi-level governance structures and their general approaches to implementing climate action at the local level, and a justification of why they were selected as a case study with regard to the relevance and learnings for England.
- Section 3 presents the conclusions and key insights from the empirical research.
- Appendix 1 presents in-depth results and findings for the five key sectors of transport emissions, buildings, AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, Land Use and Land Use Change), energy and electricity, and climate adaptation.
- Appendices 2,3, and 4 present additional detail on the methodology.
Overview of selected case study countries
This section presents an overview of climate and governance information for each of the selected case study countries and provides context in terms of their multi-level governance structures. The selection of each of the case study countries is justified with expected areas of similarity and difference to England.
England
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 130,278 | 56,536,000 | 434 |
| GDP per capita (US $): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 34,690 | 2 | 186.5 |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 63.07 | 4.6 | 82.4 |
England’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) commits to reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels. To meet this, the government has set out actions in the Net Zero Strategy, Build Back Greener, which aim to enable local areas to deliver net zero by setting clearer expectations, providing resources, and building capacity and capability. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) aims to take overall responsibility for improving coordination with local government and other local actors on the effective design and delivery of local net zero policies, as part of the department’s overall responsibility and wider leadership on delivering net zero.
The Climate Change Act 2008 set legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The act requires the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to commit to a net zero target, which requires the UK to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
The structure of local government in England varies. In most of England there are two tiers of local government, the county and the district, with responsibility for council services split between them. London boroughs, other major metropolitan boroughs, and parts of shire England operate under a single tier structure with councils responsible for all services in their area. In total there are 317 local authorities in England made up of five different types: county councils, district councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts, and London boroughs. In a number of areas, combined authorities also exist where a group of two or more councils have entered a formal arrangement to take collective decisions about cross-boundary issues. Combined authorities are technically still two tiers of local government but together they can take advantage of powers and resources that can be devolved from central government.
Most council revenue comes from central government grants. Local authorities also get revenue from council tax - which is a property tax levied on residential properties - and business rates - a property tax levied on business premises. Councils in England receive no core funding for climate action and are required to compete for short-term funding that is often unpredictable and resource intensive. Funding for local climate action comes from a combination of the Local Government Finance Settlement, other government grants and support schemes, borrowing, and private finance. The LGA and Local Partnerships have produced a Green Finance Guide, updated in 2022, to provide both practical guidance and examples of good practice to support councils in England to find the most appropriate and affordable ways to finance their green ambition. Money to fund climate action and nature restoration projects can be brought in via legal and planning mechanisms, such as Section 106 agreements or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Section 106 agreements refer to cases where a local authority approves a development, such as new homes, based on the requirement that the developer also funds other related projects. While local authorities are authorised to levy and set the rate of council tax, revenues from this are not solely for climate action. Additionally, it is important to note that councils are currently experiencing significant financial barriers with a “£4 billion funding gap over the next two years just to keep services standing still”. This is due to a combination of effects from the pandemic and a rising demand for services. Almost 1 in 5 councils believe it is likely (very or fairly) that they will issue a Section 114 notice in the next year, and half are not confident they will have enough funding to complete their legal duties in the 2024/2025 financial year.
The Netherlands
Case study relevance
The Netherlands was selected for its decentralised governance structure that involves collaboration across three government levels and waterboards, and the strong national focus on adaptation and flood risk mitigation. Furthermore, as an EU member state, the Netherlands’ experience can provide valuable lessons with respect to EU regulations and contexts.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 41,540 | 17,703,000 | 520 |
| GDP per capita (US $): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 57,767 | 4 | Not available for the Netherlands |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 62.24 | 7.47 | 76.4 |
The Netherlands is part of the European Union’s joint NDC commitment of economy-wide net domestic reduction of at least 55 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
There are four levels of Dutch Government: The Dutch national parliament (central government), 12 provinces, 342 municipalities (gemeente) and the 21 water boards - who are responsible for the country’s surface water, including the management of polders, dikes, and other water works and flood prevention. The water boards are independent of administrative governing bodies (provinces and municipalities), are directly elected, and have power to tax residents.
A decentralisation programme in the Netherlands began in 2007 and has since transferred many responsibilities to the provinces and municipalities including the regional economic policy, nature, spatial planning and traffic and transport. Provinces and municipalities have a high degree of local and regional autonomy, but with general ambitions and directions set at a national level, with the national government implementing energy and environmental policies.
The Climate Agreement (2019/2020) is the basis for climate action in the Netherlands, covering the electricity, industry, built environment, traffic and transport, and agriculture sectors. All levels of government (including the water boards) decided and agreed on the ambitions and actions in the Climate Agreement, and there are clearly defined roles and responsibilities for different levels of government. Having representation and involvement from all levels of government during the process of drafting the Climate Agreement has resulted in there being a common vision and goal aligning all stakeholders (taken from interview data). The level of clarity provided in the climate agreement for different sectors and different actors is extensive. For instance, in the agriculture and land use sector, specific measures for different actors, estimated emission reductions, and financing are all established for multiple themes, including livestock farming, forestry, soil preservation, and outdoor cultivation (as examples). This helps keep track of how much money is expected to go into different actions and provides a timeframe to do so.
National programmes (for example the Delta Programme and the Tour de Force Programme) have associated funding at the national level, and this national budget is divided among municipalities within the context of these programmes. This facilitates a degree of consistency across different municipalities. In some cases, the allocation of funds to a specific municipality is linked to their ambitions signed in the Climate Agreement. Whilst climate action funding is currently regarded as sufficient by interviewees, with the legislative landscape changing considerably following a new government in December 2023 and new challenges arising, it is expected that funding will need to increase. For the investment side of climate action, the Dutch government has significant funding available for renewable energy infrastructure. Finally, whilst the central government can also provide subsidies to different municipalities for climate action, this is not common and is mostly used by the smaller municipalities with less capacity (taken from interview data).
Large-scale programmes, such as the Delta Programme and the Tour de Force, are coordinated at the national level by national government, with collaboration of all levels of government. These examples are explored in more detail in the empirical findings in Appendix A.1.
Municipalities commonly collaborate and form networks, usually with neighbouring municipalities and organisations they have prior relationships with, creating a region with a specific shared interest or goal. Working collaboratively means municipalities can attract funding for projects they otherwise may not have the resources to do, and to make efficiencies when implementing climate action (taken from interview data).
In the Netherlands, provinces oversee administrative and financial supervision of municipalities and play a key role in vertical co-ordination. There are some provincial taxes, but national government covers most of the budgetary needs of the provinces through transfers from national funds. Municipalities have local taxes and so do the water boards. For example, residents of the city of Rotterdam make four kinds of payment related to water: payment for drinking water (based on quantity used), sewerage taxes, and two types of water board taxes – one for water systems management and one for water quality. Municipalities can set and use these taxes.
“We are used to doing a lot of things bottom-up, but looking at the speed of climate change, sometimes it is helpful to accelerate action when it is directed top-down”.
Overall, interviewees perceived the degree of local autonomy, the technical capacities of local governments, the shared visions and goals across different levels of government, and the degree of collaboration and cooperation (and subsequent clear ownership) in developing national level programmes, as strengths of the Dutch multi-level climate governance system. Whilst climate action in the Netherlands has been distributed to local authorities with tangible benefits in terms of implementing place-based and specific actions, interviewees felt that the national government could take a stronger role in setting national direction through legislation, to accelerate the rate of implementation. Another key challenge for the Netherlands is the relationship between politics and policy, with suggestions from interviewees that local policy should strive to be as independent of politics as possible.
Norway
Case study relevance
Norway was chosen for the potential learnings for England in terms of financing climate action from the Klimasats fund. Additionally, Oslo was the first city to pioneer Climate Budgeting, making it interesting to explore the governance arrangements that enabled this approach to climate action governance. The country’s effective communication and collaboration between different levels of government offer valuable insights. As a non-EU member, Norway offers lessons on governing climate action outside of the European Commission framework.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 385,203 | 5,457,127 | 15 |
| GDP per capita (US $): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 89,154 | 2 | Not estimated for Norway |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 64.47 | 6.73 | 81 |
In November 2022, Norway formally updated its NDC, committing to strengthening its 2030 NDC target to at least a 55 per cent reduction below 1990 levels.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
Norway has a two tier-system of local government with 11 county authorities and 356 municipalities. Local governments in Norway are responsible for a significant portion of welfare, infrastructure provisions, and climate action, however there are national guidelines for energy and climate planning. The national government mandates that municipalities must have a climate action plan, but it does not specify the contents of the plan and local government decides the level of ambition (taken from interview data). There is coordination between different levels of government; for example, the national government created Norway’s Zero-Growth Goal which provides the framework for land-use and transport policy for large urban areas.
According to interviewees, Norway’s system of governance is characterised by effective communication between different levels of government and within the same levels. This facilitates the exchange of information and the sharing of best practice across municipalities. The organisational structure is considered flat, which means it is not always necessary to communicate with the national government to implement action. Interviewees discussed how Norway’s four largest cities have formed a Climate Forum. This forum operates on a voluntary basis and is particularly effective in addressing climate issues, given that these cities share common challenges. The forum facilitates communication between national and regional governments, essentially creating a peer-to-peer city network. In recent years, these cities have collaborated on joint exercises to release a joint declaration on a key issue and hosted events during an annual festival for political empowerment and democracy that highlights local and national developments. The most recent event focused on energy, raising awareness of the importance of multi-level governance, and identifying missing links such as national regulation (taken from interview data).
The Klimasats Fund is a Norwegian government initiative that was established in 2016 to support local climate initiatives, experimentation, and facilitate climate cooperation between various actors. The fund is administered by a team within the Norwegian Environment Agency. By the end of 2021, the fund had financed over 1,500 projects and spent over €113 million. The fund aims to support local climate initiatives that contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a low-emission society. The fund provides grants to municipalities, county municipalities, and certain municipal enterprises. The grants are intended to be a trigger for the implementation of measures, and the municipalities must contribute with their own resources to match-fund a percentage of the overall action cost. This system is perceived to help create ownership of the actions among local governments, as they are also responsible for contributing some of the overall cost (taken from interview data). The fund has supported a wide range of projects, including the development of cycling infrastructure, the installation of solar panels, and the electrification of public transport. The programme offers several application deadlines throughout the year, allowing local authorities to apply for funding near the time of procurement instead of waiting until the annual application date. Local government can also apply to The General Purpose Grant Scheme. This scheme provides funds for local governments who are able to allocate these funds as they see fit without any additional constraints from the central government.
“Closer collaboration between the national and municipal levels is needed, with clearer expectations from national level for municipalities, outlining exactly what their expected roles are. Not all municipalities have the resources or the knowledge to implement action by themselves”.
The City of Oslo has adopted a pioneering approach to climate budgeting, which involves the creation of a dedicated Climate Budget. The Climate Budget serves as a governance tool for the city's climate work and outlines the measures and responsible agencies that are working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the municipality. The Climate Budget is updated annually and covers the entire economic plan period. The Climate Budget also identifies the national and regional measures that directly contribute to emission reductions in Oslo. The Climate Budget comes with a table of measures and responsible agencies, which report three times a year on their progress against KPIs. This has simplified the process of tracking progress on climate action and ensures that climate action is organised and centred around the budgeting process, embedding it into administrative processes (taken from interview data).
Overall, interviewees perceived the Klimasats fund, in terms of its flexibility, ease of application procedures, and scale of funding available, to be a strength of climate governance in Norway. On the other hand, the biggest challenges faced by local governments in Norway is the ambiguous national direction for climate action, and the need for national government to provide clearer expectations and guidelines for local government, recognising that local governments are “on the ground” in implementing climate action.
New Zealand
Case study relevance
New Zealand’s recent legal mandate makes it an interesting case study to explore from the perspective of mandated multi-level coordination. Since November 2022, local governments are required to consider national adaptation and emissions reduction plans in their regional and district planning. Understanding what this looks like in practice across sectors holds potential learning opportunities for England.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 268,021 | 5,124,000 | 20 |
| GDP per capita ($): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 48,781 | 2 | Not estimated for New Zealand |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 50.55 | 6.16 | 80.3 |
New Zealand’s NDC covers the period 2021-2030 with a main target of a 50 per cent reduction of net emissions below gross 2005 level by 2030.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
The New Zealand government consists of two tiers: central and local government. The central government makes decisions affecting New Zealand as a whole, whilst the local government looks after the interests and needs of specific areas. The local government sector consists of 11 regional councils, 61 territorial authorities (11 are city councils and 50 are district councils) and 6 unitary councils, which are territorial authorities with regional council responsibilities.
In New Zealand, domestic climate legislation requires the government to set emissions budgets underpinned by emissions reduction plans that include comprehensive measures across all economic sectors. New Zealand has developed a National Adaptation Plan and a National Emissions Reduction Plan across different sectors including the natural environment, homes, buildings and places, infrastructure, communities, and the economy and financial system. Since 2022, local governments in New Zealand must “have regard to” the National Adaptation Plan and National Emissions Reduction Plan when they prepare or change a regional policy statement, regional plan or district plan, acknowledging that local government is on the front line of climate change. However, interviewees suggested that the new legislation has had limited impact so far, partially related to ambiguity in the National Adaptation Plan. There is no guidance about the role for local government. On the other hand, the National Emissions Reduction Plan is considered to have had a small impact on local government, through the creation of regionalised transport emission reduction targets, which have given direction to local government for their regional and council transport plans (taken from interview data). Despite this, interviewees were uncertain how much of the content of the local plans was a result of having to “have regard to” national plans and how much was due to the political leanings of a given council.
Local government uses rates to raise money, however climate action is just one part of the local government budget and therefore funding for climate action can be limited. The Climate Emergency Response Fund is a funding mechanism from the central government which has specific criteria for the types of projects it can fund, and the fund is generated through the national Emissions Trading Scheme. There is no central government funding available for local government to implement regular climate adaptation actions. In one interviewee’s perspective, this may have resulted in the local government taking limited action on climate adaptation, to avoid long-term commitments that might not be deliverable (taken from interview data).
Overall, the interviewee from local government in New Zealand perceived there to be a need for national government to acknowledge the important strategic position of local government in implementing climate action, and clearer direction and support for local government to implement climate action. The transport sector was regarded as a strength in New Zealand’s climate governance approach, as this is a sector where local government has the most autonomy (compared with other sectors) and actions are co-funded by the transport regions, taking some financial pressure of local government budgets.
A 2023 report from the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs on the Future of Local Government identified five key shifts to help the governance system evolve to improve the environment and the wellbeing of New Zealanders over the next 30 years:
- Strengthen local democracy
- Develop authentic relationships with hapū/iwi and Māori
- Strengthen councils’ focus on holistic wellbeing
- Develop genuine partnerships between national and local governments
- Provide more equitable funding for local government.
The United States of America (USA)
Case study relevance
The United States provides an example of extreme devolution of powers to local government. It is the only case study country which has a federal system, where power is constitutionally divided between the national government, states, and local government. For this reason, a separate approach for the United States was used, exploring mini case studies in different states which highlighted relevant multi-level governance learnings and examples of both intra- and inter-state coordination and collaboration. The case studies were the following:
- Florida: adaptation to sea level rise – Demonstrating a collaboration and coordination of local governments to adapt to sea level rise.
- Texas: renewable electricity – The governance in the state enables a unique electricity market structure with a high percentage of renewable energy generation.
- The Northeast region: onshore and offshore wind at scale– multi-level collaboration between and within states to implement offshore wind at scale.
- Massachusetts: rural areas as well as urban areas are a focus of state-led climate action.
The findings from these case studies are included in the relevant sections in the empirical findings in Appendix 1.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 9,833,520 | 333,287,557 | 37 |
| GDP per capita (US $): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 70,248 | 3 | 120.47 |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 38.53 | 13.03 | 78.5 |
The latest NDC for the United States is to reduce net GHG emissions by 50-52 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Federal policy to achieve the NDC is dependent on the administration. The Democratic Biden administration passed the largest investment in climate change mitigation in the history of the United States.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
There are three tiers of government in the USA: the federal government with legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the state government, and the local government with counties and municipalities. Climate action is implemented at all levels of government in the USA, including local, state, and federal. The level of climate action and level of multi stakeholder collaboration is highly varied between different states. Approaches are not consistent, neither across the same level of government nor between different levels of government, nor is there an attempt to align local climate action at a national level (taken from interview data).
On a state and local level, different policies across multiple disciplines are being implemented to achieve emission reduction targets. Sub-national and regional partnership structures play a strong role in climate governance in the USA, and there are several partnership and collaboration programmes bringing together local government to address climate action (taken from interview data). Additionally, in and between states, there are often important collaborations with the business and private sectors, and the private sector is regarded as playing an important role in funding climate action (taken from interview data).
"There needs to be better alignment of climate action policies between local governments, across different states, or with the national level..."
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) law was passed in August 2022. The law provides tax incentives and funding programmes to build a clean energy economy, lower energy costs, tackle climate change, and reduce harmful pollution. The law is expected to drive global climate action and help the United States meet its Paris Agreement commitment. The law provides funding for clean energy and climate programmes at the programme level, which can be accessed by state, local, territorial, and tribal leaders*, the private sector, non-profit organisations, homeowners, and communities. The law also provides rebates and tax breaks to incentivise climate action at the local level. Following the passing of the IRA, interviewees perceive there to be sufficient federal funding for climate action, yet demand is expected to increase (taken from interview data). Much of federal funding is competitive, which municipalities can apply for, and different states can levy different kinds of taxes to fund their climate action.
* The US government published the "Inflation Reduction Act Tribal Guidebook" presenting the IRA and the funding programmes for which Tribal Nations are eligible. There are specific programmes and sources of funds allocated for tribal communities, recognising the vulnerability of tribal nations to climate change.
With the present Biden Administration, broad climate goals have been established at a national level which serves as a general guidance for states and cities. From the national targets, there is a joined-up bottom-up and top-down approach to the federal government, states, and cities to meet in the middle, which is particularly important for smaller states and cities. The high degree of devolution in the United States has also resulted in a reduced ability of cities to pass different climate laws. With different politically orientated states, they can choose to allow cities to pass climate action laws, and the same goes for funding, where most of the funding comes in through states and they can choose to restrict funding for climate action.
There are multiple examples of innovative funding models used to fund climate action at the local level (taken from interview data). In 2020 the city of Denver voted to approve the Climate Protection Fund, which created a city-wide sales tax estimated to raise approximately $40 million annually dedicated to funding climate action. California implemented a statewide multi-sectoral cap-and-trade programme in 2013, and the revenues received by the state from this programme fund the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, used by state agencies to implement programmes that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund stipulates that 35 per cent of revenues are required to be directed to environmentally disadvantaged and low-income communities.
Overall, interviewees regarded the power of peer-to-peer and sub-national partnership structures as a strength of the USA’s climate governance. On the other hand, whilst devolving powers to states and local authorities has facilitated climate action, a weak coordination with national and state level policies (and, at times, restrictions at the state level) was identified by interviewees as a challenge. In particular, one interviewee shared how they perceived federal funding to generally align with cities, but the state level restricts cities being able to access and use this funding to implement climate action, leading to an inability in some states for cities to lead on climate action (taken from interview data). Additionally, with such distinct governmental entities, the ability of local governments to engage with the state and federal governments is considered unclear, and there is also a lack of clarity among local governments over what is allowed and what is not in terms of multi-level collaboration and communication. According to one interviewee, Mayors need to be regarded as an implementation partner and not just another stakeholder by higher levels of government (taken from interview data).
South Korea
Case study relevance
South Korea is considered the most top-down in terms of climate governance of the selected case study countries, despite the Local Autonomy Act. Their approach offers a valuable perspective to understand how climate action is implemented and managed primarily at a national level. Exploring the legislations and policies at the national level, and the implications for implementing climate action at the local level, will provide insights into the effectiveness of top-down multi-level governance in fostering a comprehensive response to environmental challenges.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
| Size (km2): | Population: | Population density (/km2): |
|---|---|---|
| 100,210 | 51,628,117 | 533 |
| GDP per capita (US $): | Tiers of government: | World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
|---|---|---|
| 34,997 | 3 | 49.16 |
| Climate change performance index: | CO2 emissions per capita: | Energy Trilemma Index score: |
|---|---|---|
| 24.91 | 10.99 | 73.6 |
South Korea’s latest NDC was updated in December 2021 and sets an emissions reduction target of 40 per cent below 2018 levels by 2030.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
Local governments are classified into high-level and low-level local governments. The number of high-level local governments increased to 17 with the inclusion of the Sejong Special Self-Governing City in July 2012, which includes Seoul Special City, six metropolises, eight provinces, and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. The number of low-level local governments stands at 226, which includes 75 cities (si), 82 counties (gun), and 69 districts (gu).
While South Korea enacted the Local Autonomous System in June 1995, the country has a strong top-down approach to climate governance and the central government sets and enacts the national direction for climate action. This approach has been effective in coordinating and driving climate action from a national perspective. Interview respondents felt that this strong top-down approach has been beneficial to the implementation of climate action (taken from interview data), however this approach has also limited the autonomy of local government to implement local and more specific climate action.
In South Korea climate action is driven by the national government, and the scale of this leadership is much larger and more powerful than in other countries. South Korea is a country of regulations and is in practice a country of top-down control, not only of climate action. This is very effective for the rapid diffusion of climate action, but it is also a constraint on creative or spontaneous climate action at the local level.
Legally guaranteed delegated and compulsory measures are in place to ensure that national level structures are implemented at the local level in South Korea. For example, the creation and execution of local master plans in accordance with the National Comprehensive Plan mandated. The central government establishes a master plan, and then local governments implement the master plan at the local level. In South Korea, local governments have very little scope for autonomy. The “Local Self-Governance Act” mandates that local governments operate within the limits designated by national law. For instance, Seoul’s proposal to mandate energy-saving design for small, older buildings was rejected because it was not mandated by national law. General policy co-ordination between the central and local governments is carried out by the Local Government Policy Council. The Central Government Policy Delivery Council also assists in communication between government levels. A joint annual evaluation assesses the performance of local governments in executing delegated responsibilities and state-funded projects (mostly using output indicators such as number of inspections conducted).
Interviewees observed that dedicated local government climate units are rare, or otherwise small in scale with limited resources. As an example, in the province of Jeollanam-do, there are four part-time staff at the Carbon Neutrality Support Centre (taken from interview data). Seoul Metropolitan Government has a Climate and Environment Division and the Carbon Neutrality Support Centre (part of Seoul Institute of Technology), which leads climate action in the region.
South Korea’s 2022 Green New Deal is a national government-led programme that aims to create jobs and offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic while laying the foundations for future economic growth. The plan focuses on a Digital New Deal and Green New Deal and includes overarching policy support to strengthen employment and social safety nets. The Green New Deal focuses on renewable energy, green infrastructure, and the industrial sector. It includes the central and local governments’ involvement to bring innovation and jobs to the regional economy, with half of the money invested outside Seoul. According to interviewees, the Green New Deal has had significant implications for local governments. Large-scale projects that were previously planned and promoted at the local level with the support of the central government have been refined and promoted through the Green New Deal(taken from interview data). Additionally, projects related to climate action tailored to local characteristics have been promoted based on the Green New Deal. Essential policies to promote carbon neutrality, such as green remodelling of public buildings, have been supported and implemented at the local level, laying the foundation for accepting and promoting the future carbon-neutral era. This includes the support of green remodelling experts and designers. The Green New Deal has thus enabled local governments to take a more active role in promoting sustainable development.
Overall, interviewees in South Korea suggested that local governments hold limited powers to implement climate action, which is a significant challenge. They suggested that national government could delegate clear responsibilities and roles for local government. The short-term appointments of civil servants in national government roles may also be a hindrance to long-term planning (taken from interview data).
Conclusions
The research process uncovered examples of best practice in multi-level climate governance across the case study countries. This section presents our key conclusions and relevant insights for England across the five governance elements explored by this research. Conclusions have drawn from an aggregated review of the empirical findings presented in Appendix A.1.
National policies and legislations
National climate policies, legislations, and programmes should be explicit about the intended role for local government.
Interviewees from all countries stated the importance of local government being considered as an implementation partner and having a clearly defined set of roles and responsibilities in national climate action policies, legislations, and programmes. The degree to which this is currently in place in the case study countries is mixed.
In April 2023, Norway reinstated the process for license applications for onshore wind in cases where the host municipality requests it, and has since designed a tax on onshore wind development of which at least half of the revenue will go to municipalities, to ensure that a larger share of the value added in the wind power industry will accrue to society as a whole. The UK national government undertook a similar move to enable increased onshore wind development in September 2023, updating national planning policy so that local planning authorities should approve planning applications for onshore wind farms where the proposed area is identified as suitable (through various means). In the Netherlands, new legislation is planned to require local governments to identify areas suitable for renewable electricity generation, supporting the national goal, and the government is also drafting a legal framework to set obligations for local government around preferential (and opposed) cases for solar PV installation. The Netherlands current approach to climate action with the use of a Climate Agreement also demonstrates effective and clear roles and responsibilities for different sectors when it comes to meeting climate targets.
In November 2023 Ofgem announced it plans to create Regional Energy Strategic Planners (RESPs) roles to improve local energy planning through developing clear plans for how local energy systems need to develop to reach net zero, taking into account both national level targets and local needs and contexts. Some councils in England are also beginning to take an integrated approach to local area energy planning that takes a system-wide view of supply and demand across multiple options – however at the moment this is being done on a voluntary/ad-hoc basis. There is also a key opportunity for local government in England as incoming national policy around heat network delivery is implemented; giving local authorities the potential to take on the role of “zone co-ordinators” and work with planning teams to deliver a streamlined and coherent approach across energy and buildings in this area. Taking on this role could also see local authorities attracting investment, and national government has already recognised the need to properly fund these teams and is testing various options for this.
Looking at how other countries’ nationally led approaches are guiding and enabling the development of renewable energy could help deliver on latent potential in England within a nationally coherent approach that considers system-wide opportunities and fairly distributes the benefits.
Local level autonomy
Local government should be enabled by national government to take more ambitious opportunities locally, and to apply locally relevant decision frameworks where most relevant.
Across the case study countries there are examples of local government going beyond the ambition of national government, leading to successful outcomes. In the Netherlands, for example, municipalities have the authority to set and enforce local building energy efficiency standards which are more ambitious than those set by the national government, which sits in contrast to the most recent UK Government position. Additionally, in the United States, cities can implement city-wide sales taxes to fund climate action as seen by the Climate Protection Fund in Denver that raises around $40 million annually.
In England, many local authorities have set more ambitious climate targets than the Government’s national (UK-wide) target to be net-zero by 2050; however it can be unclear how these more ambitious targets will be delivered without greater clarity on areas in which local authorities can and should be setting more stringent rules and putting in place actions that will result in faster and deeper cuts to emissions locally than is being driven by national programmes and legislation.
In some cases, a counterpoint argument against locally differentiated ambitions is the need for some level of consistency across the nation to support delivery at scale, and also recognising that the value chain for many areas of climate action relies upon businesses and organisations operating at a nation-wide scale, for whom differing local regulations and policies can introduce complexity and additional cost.
There is a close parallel here with the conclusions in the next point, under ‘Integration between national and local’ – where we draw from examples of national government working to provide consistency and harmonise across locally-led initiatives, meeting and supporting the local level of ambition but providing structure, clarity and confidence which can help make things easier for businesses and consumers as well as identifying and distributing best practice in a practical way.
Another, more bottom-up solution may be to co-ordinate amongst local authorities and establish some consistent approaches that fit different levels of ambition to suit different contexts and capacities and make clear where local differentiation can be supported and where it is best avoided. This has some similarities with the conclusions around horizonal co-ordination and collaboration in the ‘sub-national and regional partnerships structures’ section below.
Learnings can also be taken from examples where national government has challenged the delivery of local climate action. For example, in Norway, Oslo’s proposed zero-emission zone was rejected by national government on the basis that it was proposed purely for climate–related reasons without a demonstrable improvement in air quality. In England in 2022, central government approved the opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria despite local objections, largely because the end-use emissions of the coal were not taken into account in the scheme’s evaluation. This highlights the need for climate to be sufficient as a justification for taking action locally, and for local government to be empowered to evaluate proposed schemes using frameworks that support local policies and targets, while also taking account of potential unintended impacts.
Overall, enabling local level autonomy – to deliver appropriate outcomes given the specific local characteristics and context – is important to foster whilst fitting in with an overall well-co-ordinated approach that reduces the challenges of too much heterogeneity in approaches, policies and regulations.
Integration between national and local
Vertical integration and coordination are key to ensuring clear collaboration.
Examples of national policies and programmes from the Netherlands highlight the importance of vertical coordination processes throughout the drafting and planning stages to ensure unifying visions and goals, as well as buy-in and clarity for every level of stakeholder involved. All regional goals in the Netherlands together must ensure that national obligations for climate, water, nitrogen, and nature are met.
In addition, there are examples within the case study countries of a variety of approaches to enabling the right decisions to be made locally but within a clear, nationally-led framework, such as the use of integrated urban land-use and transport agreements in Norway to promote close cooperation between central and local government on coordinated spatial and transport planning; the ability of municipalities in the Netherlands to implement and enforce environmental zones but with national policy harmonising the rules of these zones; and in New Zealand the clear role of local government in implementing national direction relating to forestry, to make sure the right trees are planted in the right place, for the right purpose.
In particular, there is an opportunity around integrated approaches to land use and resource management in England, transcending existing administrative boundaries. This would ensure that the best decisions are being made on the ground based on local understanding and context, whilst ensuring that they make a strategic contribution towards a national-scale plan.
Funding and resources
Local governments can account for negative externalities while funding a just transition.
Across all case study countries there are examples of innovative and successful methods local governments are taking to fund climate action. There are multiple examples of governments raising funds to subsidise a just transition while accounting for negative externalities (negative impacts that neither the provider nor the acquirer are ordinarily required to fully pay for or address – such as the environmental impacts from polluting activities), which could be considered as a “self-funding” mechanism. The revenues from California’s Cap and Trade scheme are funding the state-wide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, with 35 per cent of the fund reserved for climate- and socially-vulnerable communities, New Zealand’s national subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles are raised through the taxation of high emitting vehicles, and the revenues from New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme fund its national Climate Emergency Response Fund – which local government can then access. Cities can also raise local taxes and use these revenues to fund local climate action, as seen in Denver’s Climate Protection Fund. In England in 2020, Warwick District Council proposed a Green Levy, increasing council tax to fund its climate action plan (although this was ultimately not implemented due to the COVID-19 Pandemic), while Westminster and Wandsworth Councils have explored voluntary council tax contributions. But overall, local power to raise targeted funds is relatively limited in England, which can compromise the potential to develop local subsidies that incentivise action (as is done, for example, in the Netherlands to support local retrofit projects).
Central government can enable more flexible access to funds for climate action and allow for more flexible use of funds.
Going beyond the raising of funds for climate action, there is also a key insight around how funding is distributed. The Norwegian Klimasats fund is an example of a well-designed mechanism of deploying national grant-funding in a way that works for local authorities (avoiding some of the pitfalls of traditional occasional/competition funding in England); and it also ensures ownership through requirements to locally match-fund. In England there may be a particular opportunity around the deployment of section 106 funding (for example funds obtained through carbon offset payments) and enabling the impacts of these funds to be scaled-up through better coordination and match-funding for projects by multiple local authorities.
Central government can provide more certainty on the allocation of climate action funds.
In the Netherlands, national-led programmes (for example the Delta Programme and the Tour de Force Programme) have associated funding at the national level. The national budget is divided among municipalities within the context of these programmes. This facilitates a degree of consistency across different municipalities and avoids the challenges for local authorities of relying largely on competition funding. Additionally, the national Climate Agreement provides an estimation of the costs for different actions within different sectors, which gives a degree of certainty over time.
Sub-national and regional partnership structures
Horizontal coordination and collaboration play a key role.
All countries demonstrate the importance of horizontal collaboration between local governments. There are multiple examples of peer-to-peer networks disseminating best practice and facilitating coordinated action at a local scale. Collaboration between neighbouring local authorities is a key opportunity to address transboundary emissions and climate risks. Interviewees (particularly in the Netherlands) recognised that climate issues transcend administrative boundaries and there is power in combining approaches and action. In Florida, for example, local governments have been planning and implementing adaptation initiatives as a collective without substantial administrative and financial support from the state government. The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (SFRCCC) was founded in 2010 by four counties in Florida: Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach, and more than 30 municipalities have been actively involved in SFRCCC activities with the goal of planning and advocating for climate change adaptation regionally. In England the combined authorities can facilitate this kind of horizontal coordination, and county councils can be empowered to take on the role of a convenor in this space. Collaboration and influence are also important mechanisms to drive action in sectors and areas which are beyond the direct control of local government.
This research uncovered multiple examples of local governments piloting innovative climate action. Mechanisms to share these experiences and knowledge are essential to successfully accelerate the implementation of these actions on a larger scale. The Norwegian Klimasats fund has been used by numerous local authorities to test pilot programmes, and the fund’s requirements for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting ensure that lessons are made available for other local authorities.
Appendix 1: Empirical Findings: learnings from other countries
This section details the empirical findings from each country, drawing together insights from the desktop research and the interviews. For each sector, the context in England is provided, to give a basis for comparison. Below you will find the key governance elements, the contexts of the case study countries, and the key insights and learnings.
Transport emissions
Within the transport sector, the four sub-sectors of active travel, privately owned vehicles, public transport, and spatial and planning (i.e., zero emission spatial planning measures) were selected. These sub-sectors represent areas where local authorities are expected to have high levels of autonomy and power, and collectively have high emissions reduction potential.
England's context
Key findings from other countries
Local level autonomy
National policies and legislations
Integration between national and local
Funding and resources
Sub-national/regional partnership structures
Buildings
England's context
Key findings from other countries
Local level autonomy
National policies and legislations
Integration between national and local
Funding and resources
Sub-national/regional partnership structures
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
Within the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector, our research focused on the areas of agriculture emissions, deforestation, forestry, land use, and land use change. Due to the narrow and specific nature of these areas, we have consolidated these three areas within our desktop research findings to provide a comprehensive overview of the AFOLU sector.
England's context
Key findings from other countries
Local level autonomy
National policies and legislations
Integration between national and local
Funding and resources
Sub-national/regional partnership structures
Energy and electricity
The energy and electricity sector were grouped into two general areas: electricity and grid decarbonisation and other energy and electricity sub-sectors. Other energy and electricity sub-sectors include district heating, development of local renewable generation, local authorities acting as renewable energy utilities and decentralised and microgrids.
England's context
Key findings for other countries
Local level autonomy
National policies and legislations
Integration between national and local
Funding and resources
Sub-national/regional partnership structures
Adaptation
The adaptation sector covers actions related to general climate adaptation, nature-based solutions, and producing climate risk and vulnerability assessments.
England's context
Key findings from other countries
Local level autonomy
National policies and legislations
Integration between national and local
Funding and resources
Sub-national/regional partnership structures
Appendix 2: Methodology and approach
Overview
This section details the approach taken to understanding the key elements of governance, in five case study countries, which support and enable successful action on climate change.
Section A.1.2 details the process for selecting the case study countries. Sections A.1.3 and A.1.4 detail the climate sector and governance framework, which form the matrix used as the basis for structuring the empirical research. Section A.1.5 details the desktop research process, and how this provided a baseline understanding of the approaches to multi-level governance in the selected case study countries. Finally, section A.1.6 details the interview process to collate the local and unique experiences of navigating different governance structures and their impacts on climate action.
Selection of case study countries
After initial review of 15 selected longlist countries (noted in Appendix A.3) using a selection of key criteria and metrics across geographic, economic, environmental and governance categories (noted in Appendix A.4), a shortlist of five case study countries was selected. The short list was agreed between Arup and the LGA and the final countries selected were the United States, Norway, the Netherlands, South Korea and New Zealand.
These countries are based upon insight drawn from the comparative analysis of key metrics, alongside professional judgement. Considering the strategic objectives of this piece of research, the case study countries are collectively expected to contain multiple learnings for England in terms of governance arrangements with regard to key climate sectors. Four of the five proposed case study countries are unitary in their government structure, similar to England. The shortlisted countries represent climate action best practice in different global regions.
The full justification for selecting each case study country is presented in section 2 of the main report.
Climate sectors framework
To provide structure to the research, the following sectors were selected as focus areas: transport emissions; Agriculture, Forestry & Other Land Uses (AFOLU); buildings; energy and electricity; and climate adaptation. Within these five selected sectors, key sub-sectors were identified.
The sub-sectors are the primary areas within each sector where we expected local government to have most direct and indirect power.
It is important to note that waste was not included as a sector due to the small impact on emissions for most local authorities, and the fact that it is generally regarded as already being addressed via other means with potentially less opportunity to influence at present. The water sector was also not included due to most powers lying with other organisations (i.e., the water industry) within the UK – although it is expected that some water issues are addressed under the remit of adaptation action. It is important to note that there is some overlap between the identified sub-sectors in different countries and their approach to addressing these sectors (e.g., adaptation is sometimes framed in the context of each of the other sectors).
Sector
Governance framework
The governance arrangements and interactions in the case study countries were researched in the context of the defined climate sectors (as detailed in section A.2.3). The identified governance themes presented in the table together tell the story of how national and local governments arrange themselves to achieve action in each sector.
| Sector | Sub-sector |
|---|---|
| Local level autonomy |
|
| National policies and legislations |
|
| Integration between national and local |
|
| Funding and resources |
|
| Sub-national/regional partnership structures |
|
Desktop research
Each identified case study country was reviewed using the frameworks outlined above to ensure consistency – the aim was not to be exhaustive in the process but rather to obtain a broad overview. This approach allowed for an overview of diverse examples which provide best-practice examples for England. In addition to the five selected case study countries, England was reviewed in the same way to provide a means of comparison from which to draw insights and strategic recommendations. The outcome of this process allowed for a broad understanding, which was validated and complemented the contextual experiences from the interviews.
To conduct the desktop research, official government documents, academic research, and grey literature were used as main sources. Information was captured in an Excel workbook using a matrix structure. All sources were documented and are presented as footnotes.
Interviews
A total of eight synchronous and two asynchronous (written) interviews were conducted with representatives of the case study countries, these have been outlined in the table below.
| Country | Organisation - role | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| USA | Three representatives from peer-to-peer city and local government networks |
Understanding of the roles, challenges, and contexts of local government P2P network of US mayors focussed on local level climate action |
| Norway |
Two representatives from local governments working in the climate and transport departments. Nordic Smart City Network |
Oversees climate action at municipal level, Oslo piloted the climate budgeting approach Understanding of international P2P city networks and their role in accelerating climate action |
| Netherlands | One representative from a local government network and one representative from local government working in resilience and adaptation. |
Understanding of the roles, challenges, and contexts of local government Oversees resilience at municipal level |
| South Korea | Two climate and sustainability policy experts | Understanding of climate policy and climate action at municipal level |
| New Zealand | One representative from local government working in the climate department | Oversees climate action at municipal level |
Prior to the interviews, all interviewees were sent an introduction to the project and a topic guide detailing the key areas to be addressed. The interviews were treated as confidential and anonymous, and the findings from these interviews are presented in this report without identifying details.
All synchronous interviews were conducted on MS Teams with at least two Arup staff, one as notetaker. All interviews were recorded, and the recordings were used to consolidate notes and summaries from each interview. The data from each interview was recorded in an Excel worksheet, capturing the key information, and coding it to the main governance elements guiding this research.
Appendix 3: Initial countries considered
- Canada
- Denmark
- England (collected as baseline)
- Finland
- France
- Ireland
- Italy
- Japan
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sweden
- United States of America
Appendix 4: Criteria used in analysis of countries
| Theme | Crtieria/metrics used in analysis |
|---|---|
| Geographic |
|
| Economic |
|
| Environmental |
|
| Governance |
|