Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-14 (section)

=== 14.5.5 International Cooperation at the Sub-national and City Levels ===

<div id="h2-22-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Local and regional governments have an important role to play in global climate action, something recognised by the Paris Agreement, and also assessed in Sections 13.3.2 and 13.3.4 of this report. There are several ways they can be useful. First, sub-national governments can contribute insights and experience that provide valuable lessons to national governments, as well as offering needed implementation capacity ( [[#GIZ--2017|GIZ 2017]] ; [[#Leffel--2018|Leffel 2018]] ). A great deal of policymaking has occurred at the level of city governments in particular. Cities have been responsible for more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions and generate over 80% of global income ( [[#World%20Bank--2010|World Bank 2010]] ), and many of them have started to take their own initiative in enacting and developing mitigation policies (CDP 2015). Most of these activities aim at the reduction of GHG emissions in the sectors of energy, transportation, urban land use and waste ( [[#Bulkeley--2010|Bulkeley 2010]] ; [[#Xuemei--2007|Xuemei 2007]] ), and are motivated by concerns not only over climate, but also a consideration of local co-benefits ( [[#Rashidi--2017|Rashidi et al. 2017]] , 2019). Second, sub-national governments can fill the void in policy leadership in cases where national governments are ineffectual, even to the point of claiming leadership and authority with respect to foreign affairs ( [[#Leffel--2018|Leffel 2018]] ). International cooperation plays a role in such action. Several international networks, such as C40, ICLEI, Mayors for Climate Protection, and the Covenant of Mayors have played an important role in defining and developing climate-policy initiatives at the city level ( [[#Fünfgeld--2015|Fünfgeld 2015]] ). While the networks differ from each other, they generally are voluntary and non-hierarchical, intended to support the horizontal diffusion of innovative climate policies through information-sharing platforms linked to specific goals that member cities make ( [[#Kern--2009|Kern and Bulkeley 2009]] ). The literature has addressed the questions of why cities join the networks ( [[#Betsill--2004|Betsill and Bulkeley 2004]] ; [[#Pitt--2010|Pitt 2010]] ), what recognition benefits cities can expect ( [[#Buis--2009|Buis 2009]] ; [[#Kern--2009|Kern and Bulkeley 2009]] ), and how memberships can provide visibility to leverage international funding ( [[#Betsill--2004|Betsill and Bulkeley 2004]] ; [[#Heinrichs--2013|Heinrichs et al. 2013]] ). Membership in the networks has been found to be a significant predictor of cities’ adoption of mitigation policies, even when controlling for national-level policies that may be in place ( [[#Rashidi--2018|Rashidi and Patt 2018]] ). [[#Kona--2018|Kona et al. (2018)]] find that cities belonging to the Covenant of Mayors are engaging in emissions reductions at a rate consistent with achieving a 2°C global temperature target. [[#Kona--2021|Kona et al. (2021)]] document this trend continuing.

With respect to their role in formal international cooperation, however, it is unclear what authority, as a non-state actor, they actually have. Cities, for example, are members of transnational initiatives aimed at non-state actors, such as Global Climate Action, originally the Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action, under the UNFCCC. While there is reason to believe that such membership can add value to mitigation efforts, one study suggests that the environmental effects have yet to be reliably quantified ( [[#Hsu--2019a|Hsu et al. 2019a]] ). By contrast, [[#Kuramochi--2020|Kuramochi et al. (2020)]] provide evidence that non-state actors are leading to significant emissions reductions beyond what countries would otherwise be achieving. In terms of institutional strength, [[#Michaelowa--2017|Michaelowa and Michaelowa (2017)]] suggest that few such networks fulfil governance criteria, and hence challenge their effectiveness. Several researchers suggest that their role is important in informal ways, given issues about the legitimacy of non-state actors ( [[#Chan--2016|Chan et al. 2016]] ; [[#Nasiritousi--2016|Nasiritousi et al. 2016]] ). [[#Bäckstrand--2017|Bäckstrand et al. (2017)]] advance the concept of ‘hybrid multilateralism’ as a heuristic to capture this intensified interplay between state and non-state actors in the new landscape of international climate cooperation. The effectiveness of such non-state government actors should be measured not only by their contribution to mitigation, but also by their success to enhance the accountability, transparency and deliberative quality of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement ( [[#Chan--2015|Chan et al. 2015]] ; [[#Busby--2016|Busby 2016]] ; [[#Hale--2016|Hale et al. 2016]] ). In the post-Paris era, effectiveness also revolves around how to align non-state and intergovernmental action in a comprehensive framework that can help achieve low carbon futures ( [[#Chan--2016|Chan et al. 2016]] ). [[#Stua--2017b|Stua (2017b)]] suggests that networks involving non-state actors can play an important role in enhancing transparency. Such effectiveness has to be complemented also by ''normative questions'' , applying a set of democratic values: participation, deliberation, accountability, and transparency ( [[#Bäckstrand--2017|Bäckstrand and Kuyper 2017]] ). Such concepts of polycentric governance offer new opportunities for climate action, but it has been argued that it is too early to judge their importance and effects ( [[#Jordan--2015|Jordan et al. 2015]] ).

<div id="14.6" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="synthesis"></span>