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

=== 13.2.1 Climate Laws ===

<div id="h2-1-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

National laws that govern climate action often set the legal basis for climate action ( [[#Averchenkova--2021|Averchenkova et al. 2021]] ). This legal basis can serve several functions: establish a platform for transparent target setting and implementation ( [[#Bennett--2018|Bennett 2018]] ); provide a signal to actors by indicating intent to harness state authority behind climate action ( [[#Scotford--2019|Scotford and Minas 2019]] ); promise enhanced regulatory certainty ( [[#Scotford--2017|Scotford et al. 2017]] ); create law-backed agencies for coordination, compliance and accountability ( [[#Scotford--2019|Scotford and Minas 2019]] ); provide a basis for mainstreaming mitigation into sector action, and create focal points for social mobilisation ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Dubash--2013|Dubash et al. 2013]] ). For lower/middle income countries, in particular, the existence of a law may also attract international finance by serving as a signal of credibility ( [[#Fisher--2017|Fisher et al. 2017]] ). The realisation of these potential governance gains depends on local context, legal design, successful implementation, and complementary action at different scales.

There are both narrow and broad definitions of what counts as ‘climate laws’. The literature distinguishes direct climate laws that explicitly considers climate change causes or impacts – for example through mention of greenhouse gas reductions in its objectives or title ( [[#Dubash--2013|Dubash et al. 2013]] ) – from indirect laws that have ‘the capacity to affect mitigation or adaptation’ through the subjects they regulate, for example, through promotion of co-benefits, or creation of reporting protocols ( [[#Scotford--2019|Scotford and Minas 2019]] ). Closely related is a ‘sectoral approach’ based on the layering of climate considerations into existing laws in the absence of an overarching framework law ( [[#Rumble--2019|Rumble 2019]] ). Many countries also adopt executive climate strategies (discussed in [[#13.2|Section 13.2]] ), which may either coexist with or substitute for climate laws, and that may also be related to a country’s NDC process under the Paris Agreement.

The prevalence of both direct and indirect climate laws has increased considerably since 2007, although definitional differences across studies complicate a clear assessment of their relative importance ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Iacobuta--2018|Iacobuta et al. 2018]] ; [[#Nachmany--2018|Nachmany and Setzer 2018]] ). Direct climate laws – with greenhouse gas limitation as a direct objective – had been passed in 56 countries (of 194 studied) covering 53% of emissions in 2020, with most of that rise happening between 2010 and 2015 (Figure 13.1). Both direct and indirect laws – those that have an effect on mitigation even if this is not the primary outcome – is most closely captured by the ‘Climate Change Laws of the World’ database, which illustrates the same trend of growing prevalence, documenting 694 mitigation-related laws by 2020 versus 558 in 2015 and 342 in 2010 ( [[#Nachmany--2018|Nachmany and Setzer 2018]] ; [[#LSE%20Grantham%20Research%20Institute%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Environment--2021|LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment 2021]] ). [[#footnote-004|1]] Among these, the majority are accounted for by sectoral indirect laws. For example, a study of Commonwealth countries finds that a majority of these countries have not taken the route of a single overarching law, but rather have an array of laws across different areas, for example, Indian laws on energy efficiency and Ghana’s laws on renewable energy promotion ( [[#Scotford--2017|Scotford et al. 2017]] ).

<div id="_idContainer005" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:cde76fee304d28c4ec934182188fbc77 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_13_1.png]]

'''Figure 13.1 | Prevalence of legislation by emissions and number of countries across regions.''' '''Top:''' Shares of global GHG emissions under national climate change legislations – in 2010, 2015 and 2020. Emissions data used are for 2019, since emissions shares across regions deviated from past patterns in 2020 due to COVID. '''Bottom:''' Number of countries with national climate legislation – in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Climate legislation is defined as an act passed by a parliament that includes in its title or objectives reductions in GHGs. AR6 regions: DEV = Developed countries; APC = Asia and Pacific; EEA = Eastern Europe and West-Central Asia; AFR = Africa; LAM = Latin America and the Caribbean; MDE = Middle East. Source: updated and adapted with permission from [[#Iacobuta--2018|Iacobuta et al. (2018)]] to reflect AR6 regional aggregation and recent data.

Some direct climate laws may serve as ‘framework’ laws ( [[#Averchenkova--2017|Averchenkova et al. 2017]] ; [[#Rumble--2019|Rumble 2019]] ) that set an overarching legal context within which other legislation and policies operate. Framework laws are intended to provide a coherent legal basis for action, to integrate past legislation in related areas, set clear directions for future policy, and create necessary processes and institutions ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ) ( [[#Townshend--2013|Townshend et al. 2013]] ; [[#Averchenkova--2017|Averchenkova et al. 2017]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2018|Fankhauser et al. 2018]] ; [[#Rumble--2019|Rumble 2019]] ; [[#Averchenkova--2021|Averchenkova et al. 2021]] ). There are a variety of approaches to framework laws. Reviews of climate legislation, many of which draw particularly from the long-standing UK Climate Change Act, suggest the need for statutory targets with a long-term direction, shorter term instruments such as carbon budgets to induce action toward targets, a clear assignment of duties and responsibilities including identification of policies and responsibility for their implementation, annual reporting to Parliament; an independent body to support evidence-based decision-making and rules to govern information collection and provision ( [[#Barton--2018|Barton and Campion 2018]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2018|Fankhauser et al. 2018]] ; [[#Abraham-Dukuma--2020|Abraham-Dukuma et al. 2020]] ; [[#Averchenkova--2021|Averchenkova et al. 2021]] ).

However, country examples also suggest other, different approaches to framework laws. Korea’s Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth seeks to shift business and society toward green growth through a process of strategy setting and action plans ( [[#Jang--2010|Jang et al. 2010]] ). Kenya’s framework Climate Change Act creates an institutional structure to mainstream climate considerations into sectoral decisions, one of several examples across Africa of efforts to create framework legislation to promote mainstreaming ( [[#Rumble--2019|Rumble 2019]] ). Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change includes sectoral emission targets, along with the creation of coordinating institutions across ministries and sub-national authorities ( [[#Averchenkova--2018|Averchenkova and Guzman Luna 2018]] ). Consequently, different countries have placed emphasis on different aspects of framework laws, although the most widely prevalent approach is that exemplified by the UK.

Climate laws spread through multiple mechanisms, including the impetus provided by international negotiation events, diffusion by example across countries, and domestic factors such as business cycles ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Major landmark events under the UNFCCC have been associated with increases in national legislation ( [[#Iacobuta--2018|Iacobuta et al. 2018]] ), with a stronger effect in countries where international commitments are binding ( [[#Fankhauser--2016|Fankhauser et al. 2016]] ). Diffusion through example of legislation from other countries has been documented ( [[#Fankhauser--2016|Fankhauser et al. 2016]] ; [[#Fleig--2017|Fleig et al. 2017]] ; [[#Torney--2017|Torney 2017]] ; [[#Inderberg--2019|Inderberg 2019]] ; [[#Torney--2019|Torney 2019]] ). For example, the UK Climate Change Act was an important influence in pursuing similar acts in Finland and Ireland ( [[#Torney--2019|Torney 2019]] ) and was also considered in the formulation of Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change ( [[#Averchenkova--2018|Averchenkova and Guzman Luna 2018]] ). The presence of a framework law is positively associated with creation of additional supportive legislation ( [[#Fankhauser--2015|Fankhauser et al. 2015]] ). Domestic contextual factors can also affect the likelihood of legislation such as a weak business cycle that can impact the political willingness to pass legislation ( [[#Fankhauser--2015|Fankhauser et al. 2015]] ). In some cases, civil society groups play a role as advocates for legislation, as occurred in the UK ( [[#Lockwood--2013|Lockwood 2013]] ; [[#Lorenzoni--2014|Lorenzoni and Benson 2014]] ; [[#Carter--2018|Carter and Childs 2018]] ; [[#Devaney--2020|Devaney et al. 2020]] ) and in Germany in the build up to passage of their respective Climate Change Act ( [[#Flachsland--2021|Flachsland and Levi 2021]] ).

The performance of framework laws suggests a mixed picture. While the structure of the UK Act successfully sets a direction of travel and has resulted in a credible independent body, it performs less well in fostering integration across sectoral areas and providing an enforcement mechanism ( [[#Averchenkova--2021|Averchenkova et al. 2021]] ). a review of seven European climate change acts concludes that overall targets may not be entirely aligned with planning, reporting and evaluation mechanisms, and that sanction mechanisms are lacking across the board ( [[#Nash--2019|Nash and Steurer 2019]] ), which limit the scope for legislation to perform its integrative task. These observations suggest the need for careful attention to the design of framework laws.

There is extremely limited evidence on the aggregate effects of climate laws on climate outcomes, although there is a broader literature assessing climate policies ( [[#13.6|Section 13.6]] in this chapter and Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 14). a single assessment of direct and indirect climate laws as well as relevant executive action across a global database finds a measurable and positive effect: global annual emissions have reduced by about 5.9 CO 2 compared to an estimation of what they otherwise would have been ( [[#Eskander--2020|Eskander and Fankhauser 2020]] ). Climate laws require further research, including on the quantification of impact, framework versus sectoral approaches, and the various mechanisms through which laws act – target setting, creating institutional structures, mainstreaming and ensuring compliance.

<div id="13.2.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="national-strategies-and-nationally-determined-contributions"></span>