Leadership on climate action is shifting from being state centric to a multi-actor-coalition approach. This is one major finding in a study from the Climate Governance Commission that maps leading, high-potential states and initiatives on climate change.
Authors behind the study are Jimena Leiva Roesch, Head of Peace and Sustainable Development at the International Peace Institute (IPI) and a member of the Climate Governance Commission, and Julia Almeida Nobre, Advisor.
The study aims to identify overlap among initiatives, possible synergies and give recommendations to strengthen current trends from a global climate governance perspective. What the authors have seen so far, in the first phase of the study, is that international multi-stakeholder-initiatives are coming very strongly and becoming important players even though lacking impact on a national and regional level.
Specific recommendations on how to strengthen the climate governance landscape will be presented in the second phase of the study (July 2021).
Side-line decisions
”Right now, looking at Glasgow, some very important decisions will probably be taken within side conversations and not precisely in the main negotiations rooms.” says Jimena Leiva Roesch.
Multi-actor-initiatives can be deified as a combination of governments, business, civil society, large and small NGOs, philanthropists and so forth, coming together in the area of climate policies and actions. “These multi-sectoral coalitions need to be strengthened, scaled up and supported to bring the necessary change.”
Still, nations are dominant actors and crucial for climate action to happen.
”Of course, you need a mix of policies that only governments can take a lead on, from reducing subsidies to providing incentives and an enabling environment for a greater innovation on technology – but governments can’t do this alone any longer.”
A marathon
In the first paper of two (both to be presented later this summer), the authors have looked at a sample of 41 countries and 28 initiatives, and divided them into clusters spanning from ”front-runners” – countries as different as The Gambia and Finland, to ”running in the opposite direction” – countries as Brazil and Russia. Samples and mapping done in the most relevant sectors in line with the Exponential Roadmap. Countries classified in four broad categories: (1) Front-runners, (2) Runners-up, (3) Running for and against climate and; (4) Countries running in the opposite direction.
”One can look at it as a marathon where some countries are leading the way, others lagging behind in the race. What we see is that in many ways the pandemic has been a major game-changer, simultaneously making it possible for countries to take proper leaps forward”.
Jimena Leiva Roesch continues: ”Particularly there are very small countries that have been able, despite difficult circumstances, to use this situation as an opportunity to continue in their path to decarbonization.”
Dirty and clean
Jimena Leiva Roesch explains that in a small country, or maybe a country not devoted to a lot of natural resources, it is easier to align to and make decisions promoting a climate friendly economy,
”For bigger countries and, or strong economies such as India, Nigeria and China, as well as Canada or Norway; they are grappling with very difficult questions because the current tension: recovering lost time in the economy by subsidising oil and fossil fuels, or – making an u-turn shifting towards a completely green path”. “Maybe the environment ministry is saying ’yes we want to commit to halving by 2030 air 2050′, but then trade- or economy ministries are going in the completely opposite direction.”
”This is also why countries that have a whole government approach, leadership from the very top aligning all ministries, have more serious action on climate change.”
But adding to the complexity is that there is a kind of misalignment of government issues. ”We see that countries such as China and India, what they are doing at home in terms of greening, solar energy and preventing disasters etc, is not really transforming into a foreign policy. In other words we have countries that can be both ”dirt” and ”clean” at the same time.”
These contradictions are some of the biggest challenges to overcome in order to achieve a functional and strong global climate governance. ”Also there is a big gap on what happens at the global level when it comes to announcements and how they deliver on funding. Clearly there is something wrong with governance structures because it is not creating the needed incentives.”
Window of opportunity
In the second part of the study the authors will present case studies focusing on leadership, governance and diplomacy. They will also examine more closely leading initiatives and provide more nuanced details on their scalability and potential to deliver exponential change and results. The world is at a turning point in time means Jimena Leiva Roesch.
”This partly due to covid, partly due to the US back at the table, which can trigger a domino effect in other countries. 2021 can present a window of opportunity to reaffirm the Paris Agreement and renew our commitment to work on these big issues together.”
”But this being said, this is going to be empty words if government structures at national levels continue to process matters as usual. The momentum and energy that is happening at the global level have to translate to all levels of governance to create the needed transformation.”
Lastly Jimena Leiva Roesch stresses the need to continue to keep leaders accountable and the importance of young people. Germany is an example where youth movements are actively influencing climate policies.
”Youth movements as Fridays for Future is a strong discerning voice demanding change and urgent action, especially at the local and national levels.”
