Despite overwhelming evidence that the social, economic, and environmental benefits of ambitious climate action outweigh the costs, only a handful of countries have policy commitments in line with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Given that none of these countries classify as high income, it is apparent that capacity, access to technology, and policy expertise alone are not sufficient to ensure political ambition.

1. JESSE WORKER JESSE.WORKER@WRI.ORG
A POLITICAL ECONOMY
ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC
CLIMATE GOVERNANCE
March 23, 2021
Supported by The Oak Foundation and the Open Government Partnership Multidonor Trust
Fund

2. THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE
UNEP, UNEP DTU Partnership,2020;Climate Action Tracker 2020
UN Emissions Gap Report 2020:
“Current NDCs remain seriously inadequate to achieve
the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and would
lead to a temperature increase of at least 3˚C by the
end of the century…A dramatic strengthening of
ambition is needed if the Paris Agreement goals are to
be achieved.”
•

3. THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE
Jafino et al, 2020; ; Global Commission on Adaptation 2019
32 -132 million additional
people in extreme poverty by
2030
$1.8 Trillion invested in
key adaptation areas
could produce $7.1
Trillion net benefits from
2020-2030

4. 2021: 40 GOVERNMENTS, INT’L ORGANIZATIONS
AND NGOS COMMIT TO PRINCIPALS OF LOCALLY-
LED ADAPTATION
“Local communities are on the frontlines of climate change
impacts, yet rarely do they and other local actors have a voice
in the decisions that most affectthem.
We need to shift the status quo fromcurrent top-down
approaches to a new model where local actors have greater
power and resources to build resilience to climate change.”

5. THE GOVERNANCE CHALLENGE
Without emission
mandates, success
of Paris Agreement
rests largely on
domestic
governance and
politics
Photo credit: Vjosana Shkurti

6. THE GOVERNANCE CHALLENGE
• Only a handful of countries are implementing
• Even when countries make ambitious
commitments, they may lack of supportive
structures and incentives to ensure
coordination, effectively engage non state
actors, and hold actors accountable
• “Lack of political will” often lamented, but
what drives and sustains political support for
different climate policy issues?

7. PURPOSE
• Provide climate change advocates
and practitioners with a more
systematicwayto consider
domestic political economy as it
applies to specific climate
governance challenges
• Help domestic climate policy
champions develop more
politically savvy strategies for
enacting and implementing
needed climate policies and
actions

8. CLASSIC (SIMPLIFIED) GOVERNANCE APPROACH
Mandates &
Leadership
Capacity
(including WRI
analysis/tools)
Action??
Implementation
gap

9. WHAT DOES THIS ADD?
Mandates &
Leadership
Capacity
(including WRI
analysis/tools)
Action??
What’sdriving this?
Constituencies, ideas,
or politicallegacy
interests?
Is rule of law respected?
Do mandates reduce
power or threaten role
of key actors?
Is capacity building
itself enough of an
incentive to change
behavior?
What do we know about
organized interests for or
againstthe policy? Can
they be weakened or
amplified?
What are the risks of
regulatory capture, rent-
seeking and corruption in
limiting effectiveness and
equity?

10. OUR APPROACH
• Domestic scale—will be piloted at national
and subnational scales
• Problem driven—use assessment questions
in response to, or in anticipation of a governance
challenge
• Tailor questions to context (not all will be
relevant to set of users)
• Intended audience: civil society and
multisector coalitions for climate action

11. STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS
• Exposure of the country to different climate change impacts
• Level of public debt (which may influence decisionsto shift awayfrom high-carbon
investments)
• Demographic trends, such as populationgrowth, percentage of youth and/or
seniors, ethnic diversity, urbanization,and geographic concentration
• Levels of inequality
• Politicalconditions,such as independenceof branches of government,
decentralization,single-party or multiparty systems
• Domestic energy resources, their contributionto the economy and employment,
and ownership
• The capacityand abilityof civil society to participatein and influence climate
policies, includinghistoricalrepresentationand issues of trust with public
authorities

12. QUESTIONS ON RULES AND NORMS
• The degree to which climate action is politically salient at different levels
of decision-making
• The prevalence of veto points and how they might be used to stymie
climate policy
• Conflicting/overlapping mandates
• Transparency of decision-making
• Sociocultural norms that inhibit involvement of certain groups or shape
power dynamics in civil society’s influence on policymaking
• The structures, incentives, relationships, and power dynamics that
influence the effectiveness of horizontal and vertical coordination

13. QUESTIONS ON STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERESTS
• Whether and how different stakeholder groups see climate policy as
relevant to their interests
• How executive branch exerts power across branches of government
• Patronage politics and who benefits from climate actions
• Who are decision makers and whom do they listen to/represent
• The distributional impacts of a potential climate policy
• Whether civil society can safely resist government actions

14. QUESTIONS ON IDEAS AND NARRATIVES
• Prevailing idea(s) on how the problem should be addressed and what are
the available and appropriate solutions
• Whether there are competing ideas and how they are being promoted
• The dominant narrative on climate change risks, who’s responsible, and to
whom resources should be allocate
• How the issue is framed in the media and the role of key messengers in
shifting the dialogue for targets of influence

15. APPLYING THE ASSESSMENT
Identify governance
challenge affecting
policy ambition
Convenestakeholders
to validate challenge
and select most
relevantquestions
Conduct assessment
and determine
communicationsand
influencestrategy
Take Action (coalition
building,advocacy
campaign, capacity
buildingetc)
Evaluate results and
monitor for political
economy shifts

16. HOW CAN IT INFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING?
• What conditions enabled British Colombia’s
carbon tax to succeed while Australia’s failed
(despite compensation schemes)?
• When have coalitions in support of renewable
energy managed to weaken incumbent fossil
fuel interests?
• How can policies be designed and
communicated so that benefits or quick and
visible to generate positive feedback?

17. A CALL TO ACTION FOR RESEARCHERS AND
PRACTITIONERS
• What types of political and institutional support make accountability
mechanisms work?
• What enables and sustains diverse coalitions necessary for
overcoming opposition?
• Coordination has always been a governance challenge—what to do
when mandates are insufficient?
• What threats do shrinking civic space and attacks on activists pose
to climate action?
• Can innovative deliberative policymaking (e.g. citizen assemblies)
address issues of public engagement and government
responsiveness?

18. AN OVERVIEW OF INDIA’S CLIMATE GOVERNANCE
LANDSCAPE
Research institutes, MDBs, civil society and private sector support with
programme design, funding, capacity and other resources across levels

19. CITY-LEVEL CLIMATE ACTION: IMPETUS,
CHALLENGES, CHARACTERISTICS
• Siloed, project-
based approach
• Multiple agencies
• Negotiating
immediate
outputs over long-
term planning
Cities
Increasingly at the
forefront of
climate action
responsibilities
Limited
instruments on
climate action

20. • History of climate
action initiated in
these cities
• Diversity in
governance
approaches, political
priorities and
legacies
• WRI’s experience of
working in these
geographies
PILOT CITIES
Kochi
Indore
Surat
Pune

21. THROUGH THIS UNDERSTANDING WE HOPE…
• Cities can learn from each other
• Greater insight in designing inclusive and
participatory climate action plans that go beyond
sectoral technocratic approaches
• Better understanding of public leadership and the
role of non-government actors in contributing to
climate action
• To unlock appropriate entry points at suitable scales
of governance

22. THANK YOU!
Source: PA
Jesse Worker; jesse.worker@wri.org
Niki Palmer; niki.palmer@gmail.com
Uttara Narayan; Uttara.Narayan@wri.org