Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-13 (section)

==== 13.2.4.2 Factors Influencing Institution Building at the Sub-national Level ====

<div id="h3-4-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Availability of federal funding is a fundamental pillar of city actors’ capacity to develop mitigation policies. Administrative structures, such as the presence of a professional city manager and staff assigned specifically to climate efforts ( [[#Simon%20Rosenthal--2015|Simon Rosenthal et al. 2015]] ). Cooperation between administrative departments, and the creation of knowledge and data on energy use and emissions are also essential for mitigation planning ( [[#Hughes--2014|Hughes and Romero-Lankao 2014]] ; [[#Ryan--2015|Ryan 2015]] ). For example, the high technical competency of Tokyo’s bureaucracy combined with availability of historical and current data enabled the city’s unique cap-and-trade system on large building facilities ( [[#Roppongi--2017|Roppongi et al. 2017]] ).

Visions and narratives about the future benefits or risks of climate change are often effectively advanced at the sub-national level, drawing on local governmental abilities to bring together actors involved in place-based decarbonisation across sectors ( [[#Hodson--2009|Hodson and Marvin 2009]] ; [[#Bush--2016|Bush et al. 2016]] ; [[#Huang--2018|Huang et al. 2018]] ; [[#Prendeville--2018|Prendeville et al. 2018]] ; [[#Levenda--2019|Levenda et al. 2019]] ). For example, in the plans of 43 C40 Cities, climate action is framed as part of a vision for vibrant, economically prosperous, and socially just cities, that are habitable, secure, resource-efficient, socially and economically inclusive, and competitive internationally ( [[#Romero-Lankao--2019|Romero-Lankao and Gnatz 2019]] ).

However, institution building is often constrained by a lack of national support, funding, human resources, coalitions, coordination across old and new organisations, and the ability to create new institutional competences ( [[#Valenzuela--2014|Valenzuela 2014]] ; [[#Jörgensen--2015a|Jörgensen et al. 2015a]] ; [[#Ryan--2015|Ryan 2015]] ; [[#Dubash--2018|Dubash et al. 2018]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2018a|Romero-Lankao et al. 2018a]] ; [[#Anderton--2018|Anderton and Setzer 2018]] ; [[#Cointe--2019|Cointe 2019]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2019|Di Gregorio et al. 2019]] ; [[#Jaccard--2019|Jaccard et al. 2019]] ; [[#Hughes--2019b|Hughes 2019b]] ). Climate mitigation can also be limited by cultural norms and values of policy actors with varying levels of power, and shifting alliances ( [[#Lachapelle--2012|Lachapelle et al. 2012]] ; [[#Damsø--2016|Damsø et al. 2016]] ; [[#Giampieri--2019|Giampieri et al. 2019]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2018a|Romero-Lankao et al. 2018a]] ).

Institution building is constrained by inequities; resources, legal remit, knowledge, and political clout vary widely within and among sub-national governments globally ( [[#Jörgensen--2015b|Jörgensen et al. 2015b]] ; [[#Genus--2016|Genus and Theobald 2016]] ; [[#Joffe--2016|Joffe and Smith 2016]] ; [[#Klinsky--2018|Klinsky 2018]] ; [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ; [[#Markkanen--2019|Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi 2019]] ). Dominant discourses tend to prioritise scientific and technical expertise and, thus, they focus on infrastructural and economic concerns over the concerns and needs of disadvantaged populations ( [[#Heikkinen--2019|Heikkinen et al. 2019]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2019|Romero-Lankao and Gnatz 2019]] ).

In addition, expert driven, technical solutions such as infrastructural interventions can undermine the knowledge of lower income countries, communities or indigenous knowledge holders, yet are often used by sub-national governments ( [[#Ford--2016|Ford et al. 2016]] ; [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen 2018]] ; [[#Nagorny-Koring--2019|Nagorny-Koring 2019]] ; [[#Whyte--2017|Whyte 2017]] , 2020). Technical solutions, such as electric vehicles or smart grids rarely address the needs and capabilities of disadvantaged communities that may not be able to afford these technologies ( [[#Mistry--2014|Mistry 2014]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2021|Romero-Lankao and Nobler 2021]] ). However, mitigation strategies in sectors such as transport and buildings have often focused on technical and market outcomes, the benefits of which are limited to some, while others experience negative externalities or face health risks ( [[#Markard--2018|Markard 2018]] ; [[#Williams--2019|Williams and Doyon 2019]] ; [[#Carley--2020|Carley and Konisky 2020]] ). Delivering climate justice requires community-driven approaches to understanding the problem addressing structural inequities and fostering justice, while reducing carbon emissions ( [[#Romero-Lankao--2018b|Romero-Lankao et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Carley--2020|Carley and Konisky 2020]] ; [[#Lewis--2020|Lewis et al. 2020]] ).

To address this situation requires procedural justice that involves all communities, particularly disadvantaged, in climate mitigation decisions and policies (Box 13.4). Also essential is recognition justice, that addresses past inequities through tools such as subsidies, tariffs, rebates, and other policies ( [[#Agyeman--2013|Agyeman 2013]] ; [[#Rydin--2013|Rydin 2013]] ; [[#UN%20Habitat--2016|UN Habitat 2016]] ). Both tenets are key to ensure the fair distribution of benefits or negative impacts from mitigation policies (distributional justice) ( [[#McCauley--2018|McCauley and Heffron 2018]] ; [[#Lewis--2020|Lewis et al. 2020]] ). However, the benefits of inclusive approaches are often overlooked in favour of growth oriented mitigation and planning ( [[#Rydin--2013|Rydin 2013]] ; [[#Altenburg--2011|Altenburg 2011]] ; [[#Smith--2019|Smith 2019]] ; [[#Lennon--2020|Lennon 2020]] ). Box 13.6 discusses how the city of Durban has internalised climate change with attention to considerations of justice.

Moreover, deep mitigation requires moving beyond existing technological responses ( [[#Mulugetta--2018|Mulugetta and Castán Broto 2018]] ) to policies that correspond to the realities of developing countries ( [[#Bouteligier--2013|Bouteligier 2013]] ).However, best practice approaches tend to be fragmented due to the requirements of different contexts, and often executed as pilot projects that rarely lead to structural change ( [[#Nagorny-Koring--2019|Nagorny-Koring 2019]] ). Instead, context-specific approaches that include consideration of values, cultures and governance better enable successful translation of best practices ( [[#Affolderbach--2016|Affolderbach and Schulz 2016]] ; [[#Urpelainen--2018|Urpelainen 2018]] ).

<div id="Box 13.6 | Institutionalising Climate Change Within Durban’s L" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-13.6-institutionalising-climate-change-within-durbans-l-ocal-government"></span>