Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

===== 17.4.2.1.3 Impact of legal and policy instruments =====

<div id="h4-12-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Commitment to act, and guidance on how to do so, from international and national governance levels can drive national and sub-national adaptation ( [[#Reckien--2013|Reckien et al., 2013]] ; [[#Heidrich--2016|Heidrich et al., 2016]] ; [[#Reckien--2018a|Reckien et al., 2018a]] ). For example, more local plans have been developed in European countries where it is obligatory for local municipalities to develop climate change plans ( [[#Reckien--2018a|Reckien et al., 2018a]] ). Local government have also drawn on non-binding national climate frameworks, as well as international frameworks (such as European law) or international networks (such as Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy) to guide their actions ( [[#Reckien--2013|Reckien et al., 2013]] ; [[#De%20Gregorio%20Hurtado--2015|De Gregorio Hurtado et al., 2015]] ; [[#Reckien--2015|Reckien et al., 2015]] ; [[#Heidrich--2016|Heidrich et al., 2016]] ; [[#Reckien--2018a|Reckien et al., 2018a]] ).

However, a national framework is not always sufficient to trigger climate change action on the lower level, in particular when the national guiding document fails to clearly formulate how it should be used and ‘translated down’ to lower governance levels ( [[#De%20Gregorio%20Hurtado--2015|De Gregorio Hurtado et al., 2015]] ). Guidance on how to apply a national framework at lower governance levels can assist in their uptake.

In the case of climate change legislation, research on the impact of adaptation laws is limited, save for a few studies ( [[#Averchenkova--2017|Averchenkova and Matikainen, 2017]] ), because many framework laws, particularly those with more of an adaptation focus, have only been published recently ( [[#Rumble--2019b|Rumble, 2019b]] ). Reviews of the implementation of the risk assessment and adaptation components of the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 suggest that they had a weaker implementation record compared with mitigation provisions ( [[#Fankhauser--2018|Fankhauser et al., 2018]] ), potentially because implementation of adaptation is more complex as compared with mitigation as shown for the local level ( [[#Reckien--2019|Reckien et al., 2019]] ). However, the UK Act is considered to have made action on climate change more predictable, more structured and more evidence based ( [[#Averchenkova--2021|Averchenkova et al., 2021]] ).

There are numerous examples of regulatory and project-based innovations by local governments. Their impact, however, is uneven, with much depending on the implementation capacity of local governments and other socio-institutional barriers, including those relating to mandate and joint project implementation, cross-departmental working, planning cycles, concerns relating to legal liability and compensation, political appetite and cost ( [[#Godden--2012|Godden, 2012]] ; [[#Taylor--2016a|Taylor, 2016a]] ). Notwithstanding implementation challenges, evidence is emerging that overarching framework laws play a foundational and distinctive role in supporting effective climate governance, including adaptation governance ( [[#Fankhauser--2018|Fankhauser et al., 2018]] ), and are drivers of subsequent activity ( [[#Townshend--2011|Townshend et al., 2011]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2014|Fankhauser et al., 2014]] ; [[#Clare--2017b|Clare et al., 2017b]] ), especially when formulated with clear guidance for all related actors, including lower level of governance ( [[#De%20Gregorio%20Hurtado--2015|De Gregorio Hurtado et al., 2015]] ). This may explain the rapid increase in both local and national climate change laws, now with an increased emphasis on regulatory provisions to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability.

<div id="17.4.2.1.4" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="regulations-and-standards"></span>