Multi‐level Climate Governance: The global system and selected sub‐systems

The Baku Climate Conference (COP29) is intended to address the intensifying fragmentation of global climate governance by setting new collective quantified goals (NCQGs) for climate finance and discussing critical issues such as loss and damage funds. At the conference, significant divergences persisted among countries on core issues such as climate finance, energy transition, and carbon market mechanisms, as evidenced by the ongoing negotiations and challenges in reaching a consensus on new climate finance goals. This not only mirrors the intricacies of the global governance system but also highlights the longstanding conflicts of interest among different stakeholders. Despite the hurdles impeding multilateral cooperation, South–South cooperation and regional integration efforts are gaining traction. Regional initiatives continue to advance global climate action, albeit in a limited fashion. As a key actor in global climate governance, China has taken on a more significant role by actively leveraging multilateral frameworks to promote collaboration, as evidenced by its substantial contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and advancing green finance initiatives. Multilateral cooperation has been a cornerstone of China’s approach to climate change, as evidenced by its unwavering commitment to providing support to other developing nations and its leadership in global climate action. China consistently plays a constructive role in global climate governance, providing practical solutions aimed at fostering deeper integration within the global governance framework. The future of global climate cooperation hinges on the development of a more stable, just, and efficient climate governance system, as exemplified by China’s commitment to carbon reduction and its efforts to foster a fair and reasonable global climate governance framework.

Global climate governance is an integral part of global governance. Its most prominent feature is to make the entities and means of tackling global warming diversified. At present, NGOs have a growing presence in global climate governance. Their status in UN climate change negotiations has been increasingly rising, the issues they pay attention to have attracted more attention from the international community, and they have more choices on how to hold activities. NGOs mainly serve global climate governance in three aspects: the diverse soft power that NGOs assume when they participate in global climate governance, the multiple modes that NGOs adopt when they participate in global climate governance, and the multiple roles that NGOs play when they participate in global climate governance. The reform of the global climate governance system is now at a historical turning point. China needs to continuously sharpen its capabilities and improve strategies to lead global climate governance, and strengthen and lead the construction of NGOs.KeywordsGlobal climate governanceNGOsParis Agreement

Students of Global Governance have long shown a special interest in climate governance. Global Climate Governance features prominently in global politics, but we lack full understanding about how to describe, characterize and analyze the normative context of climate governance. For China, the policies and legal system for climate governance is still not perfect and many shortcomings in the supporting mechanisms and guarantee mechanisms to fulfill its obligations. According to the theoretical contribution of the English School, the paper argues that the Liberal Environmentalism can be interpreted as the normative system for Global Climate Governance. This system provides a useful basis for scholars and practitioners to conceptualize the climate governance dynamics influencing Global Governance. It also provides an important theoretical reference for China's participation in Global Climate Governance.

Multilevel governance is theorized to facilitate effective policy implementation by encouraging the use of local knowledge and expertise, enabling the participation of non‐government actors, and capitalizing on the coordinating and sanctioning authority of centralized governments. Whether a particular multilevel governance arrangement achieves this, however, depends in part on the degree to which it enables coordination among governmental and non‐governmental actors representing different levels and jurisdictions. Using a comparative case study of education governance reform in the United States, this study investigates how differences in state policy implementation approach impact the structure and mode of coordination in multilevel governance systems and considers the effects this has on policy implementation processes. The results indicate that a state's implementation approach impacts coordination by structuring how different levels of government interact, share information, and influence policy. Specifically, variation in the structure of the central governing agency directly enables or restricts the influence of bottom‐up coordination from lower levels of government. The results also highlight the theoretical limitations of current binary structure models of multilevel governance (i.e., centralized vs. decentralized, top‐down vs. bottom‐up, hierarchy vs. network) for capturing important nuances in policy coordination. These findings advance the understanding of policy coordination in multilevel governance systems and inform the design of institutional arrangements that balance trade‐offs in centralization and the delegation of authority across governance systems during policy implementation.

This chapter discusses EU external governance in climate policy, conceptualizing a toolbox of policy options. The EU can make use of different tools, which can be introduced either unilaterally or bi- and multilaterally, to exert influence in global climate governance. These tools can be hard or soft policy. This leads to a classification of EU external governance tools into four groups: international treaties and agreements, cooperation with extra-EU jurisdictions, coercion and incentives, and external effects of EU pioneering policy. Each of the groups of tools holds potential to advance EU influence in international climate governance, but they also have limitations. None of the tools is a silver bullet that solves all problems. While the EU prefers multilateral solutions, this is challenging in climate policy in practice. International climate negotiations progress slowly and may prove insufficient for the EU to pursue its climate policy goals. Whether the EU achieves its climate governance goals depends on its skill in using the entire external governance toolbox effectively.

Since the 1990s, the global climate governance pattern has kept evolving from the initial two camps of developed and developing countries to the current pattern of multi-polarity, featuring the withdrawal and return of Paris Agreement by the United States, the declining leadership of the EU, the coalition of BASIC countries, and the rise of the least developed countries and small island developing states as newly emerging forces. This evolution mainly results from the combined effects of three factors: (i) The changes in the carbon emission pattern driven by population, economic growth, and technological progress; (ii) the stronger influences and power of discourse of the least developed countries and small island developing states as derived from the impacts of and vulnerability to climate change; and (iii) the impacts brought about by uncertain factors such as the uncertainties in terms of science, politics, and technological progress. These factors will still affect the trend of global climate governance in the future. The carbon emissions of developed countries will continue to take a less share in the world’s total, while the proportion of India and the least developed countries in this respect will rise rapidly, which will make global climate governance face a dilemma. Technological progress and the positive actions of non-state entities indicate that the international climate system needs reform and innovation. The rapid development of China over the past three decades has been synchronized with the evolution of the global governance structure, and has naturally become one of the internal factors driving the evolution of climate governance pattern. In the face of various pressure and challenges, China has been pushed to the forefront of global climate governance. China should observe the general trends within and outside the country, and respond to them rationally: (i) Set the proper role of China in the new pattern of global climate governance, i.e. a cooperation leader who should make positive contributions and avoid premature advance; (ii) innovate the concept and institutional system of global climate governance, and study and put forward the Chinese approach that is positive, pragmatic, and operable; (iii) help low-income countries cope with climate change by virtue of renewable energy technology and industrial cooperation, and achieve a win–win situation by encouraging Chinese enterprises to “go out” and helping low-income countries effectively control carbon emissions; and (iv) strengthen the climate cooperation with non-state actors, give play to their special role, and promote China’s comprehensive reform and opening-up.

This chapter places national systems in the context of European Union (EU) multi-level environmental governance. The role played by the EU in harmonising, or at least reducing the variation of, national policy strategies and practices, is discussed together with the problems raised by the implementation of EU environmental measures and their associated difficulties of compliance. Understanding of the extent to which international pressures make for convergence among national systems will begin if the circumstances under which countries find it easy or difficult to comply with EU environmental measures are identified. With the issue of compliance, the consideration is primarily with the direct effects of the EU's system of multi-level governance.

Focusing on forest policy and urban climate politics in Brazil and Indonesia, the primary objective of this chapter is to identify domestic pioneers and leaders who, compared to other sectors, governmental levels or jurisdictions within the same nation-state, move ‘ahead of the troops’ (Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017: 2-3). The chapter focuses especially on the role of multilevel governance in bringing about pioneership and leadership and on the different types of that have emerged. It also explores whether and, if so, to what extent domestic pioneers and leaders attract followers and whether there are signs of sustained domestic leadership. The chapter identifies the actors that constitute pioneers and leaders and assesses the processes which lead to their emergence. The chapter authors take up Wurzel et al.’s (2019) call to open up the black box of the nation-state. But instead of stressing the role of non-state actors, the chapter authors focus on vertical interactions among different governmental levels within nation states. The main argument put forward is that international and transnational processes, incentives, and ideas often trigger the development of domestic pioneership and leadership. Such processes, however, cannot be understood properly if domestic politics and dynamics across governmental levels within the nation-state are not taken into account.

The growing international influence of so-called emerging powers has had a major impact on global governance, leading to new challenges for established and emerging powers alike. This contribution outlines the expectations of established powers and the debates on the state of global governance in the field of International Relations, as well as the positions and policies of emerging powers. An analysis of the fields of trade and climate policy highlights the resilience of established powers and reveals that emerging powers, despite their declared reluctance, have actively participated in global governance to pursue their interests. While cooperation is difficult, confrontation is not inevitable.

This paper explores the theoretical relationship between climate governance and political accountability within India’s federal framework. Drawing on multilevel governance, principal-agent, and institutional accountability theories, it analyses how authority, incentives, and transparency shape India’s climate policy design and implementation. The study finds that while India has progressively integrated the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) into a coherent framework, vertical and horizontal coordination remains weak due to fiscal asymmetries, uneven institutional capacity, and fragmented oversight mechanisms. Parliamentary debates, judicial review, and participatory forums enhance accountability but operate unevenly across levels of government. The paper proposes that effective climate governance in federations depends on adaptive accountability systems that align incentives, decentralise authority, and link democratic legitimacy with policy performance. It contributes theoretically by synthesising existing frameworks to explain how federal democracies manage complex, multi-scalar climate governance challenges. Policy implications emphasise fiscal reform, intergovernmental coordination, and stronger state-level capacities. Future research should empirically examine subnational dynamics, funding accountability, and sectoral pathways in energy and agriculture to deepen the understanding of India’s evolving climate governance model.

At global scale, the building sector accounts for 40% of total energy end use and almost 35% of greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it one of the most important sectors to focus on for reaching the 1.5–2 °C target of the Paris Agreement, to enhance energy security of supply and to alleviate energy poverty. The European Union (EU) is often seen as a leader in climate governance, which is also true for energy efficiency. The improvement of energy performance of buildings has been part of EU public policy for more than 50 years, making the EU a pioneer in the policy domain. Based on a semi-structured review of the scientific literature (N = 90), this paper is aimed at drawing the lessons from research on governance of energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings in the EU. As for the findings, there is a multitude of policy instruments developed on different levels of governance, more or less integrated and managed by different actors and no single instrument is sufficient to stimulate energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings. Five key challenges are identified in the governance literature examining the transition towards energy efficiency and zero-carbon buildings. An ambiguous leadership, heterogeneity of implementation, lack of incentives, limitations of non-regulatory policies and market-based instruments, and limited diffusion between governance levels. We also conclude that most policy instruments focus on new buildings which is problematic since the greatest challenge in the transition is the renovation of the large existing building stock.

This book explores the role of feminist activists in The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and highlights the progress they have made in mainstreaming gender as a key issue in global climate governance. It is now commonplace for gender to be framed as a political issue in global climate politics within academic scholarship, but there is typically a lack of robust empirical analysis of existing advocacy approaches. Filling this lacuna, Joanna Flavell interrogates the political strategies of the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) in the UNFCCC (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Through a conceptual framework that integrates climate change with intersectional critical inquiry and political practice, Flavell analyses hundreds of historical documents, coupled with interviews and observations from two UNFCCC conferences. This research uncovers a so-far untold story about the history of the UNFCCC that foregrounds gender and feminist advocacy, highlighting the importance of the WGC in shaping dominant narratives of global climate governance through a series of rhetorical and procedural strategies. Overall, the book draws important conclusions around power in global climate governance and opens up new avenues for advancing a feminist green politics. This volume will be of great interest to students and scholars of environmental justice, climate politics and governance, environmental activism, and gender studies more broadly.

BackgroundA sustainable energy system based on renewables, energy-efficiency, decentralisation of energy generation and synergies between different sectors requires new energy planning methods and policies. Energy transition and climate change mitigation achievement can no longer be seen only through top-down activities from a national government. Local and regional governments have a crucial role in delivering public policies relevant to such endeavour. Therefore, the implementation of multilevel governance (MLG) has become a priority for fostering local and regional development more inclusively. Paper analyses the existing energy planning governance in Austria throughout the MLG structure by focusing on the alignment between the local energy and climate initiatives and the national and EU goals. Also, the paper examined the effectiveness of the current MLG structures and outlined the fields where improvements are needed. The successfulness of the MLG approach is shown on Judenburg city case study. Desk research is enhanced by a series of interviews with energy policy experts and implementation of case study measures in TIMES model.ResultsThe MLG analysis showed the solid alignment of different governance levels. In contrast, the comparison of the energy and climate initiatives on the local level outlined recommendations for the design of more effective energy planning approach. Four areas of action are identified for further improvement: territorial fragmentation, data availability, spatial energy planning and new integrated MLG. The remaining non-conventional biomass potential of the Murtal region is enough to increase the share of district heating for the residential buildings of the Judenburg city from 16.3 to 30.8% while the building refurbishment increases district heating share to 32%.ConclusionApplication of MLG analysis demonstrated the alignment of energy targets in Austrian policy on different governance levels. The general willingness of Austrian municipalities to take part in local energy actions was shown through the local initiatives’ analysis. It is argued that strengthening the listed areas of work is necessary to raise the effectiveness of the local initiatives. The case study for the city of Judenburg developed in the TIMES model confirmed that coordinated actions from different levels of governance lead to effective implementation of measures.

The global climate governance process will have a profound impact on geopolitical relations, and, at the same time, these will determine the direction of cooperation in international climate governance. The European Union and the United States are the most important players in the global governance of climate change, and their competing policy orientations and dynamics have a major impact on trends in this field. In this context, Africa is the region most vulnerable to climate change, and the climate issue in Africa has become one of the frontiers of competition between major powers. Indeed, major powers are increasingly competing in Africa, primarily in the areas of climate leadership, program provision, and capacity building. The study is based on the review of articles and research works regarding the global climate change strategies, especially in AFRICA (2020–2024); it also collected information and statistics from the websites and reports of world banks. In the future, the European Union and Africa should work together to build a new era of strategic partnerships to fight climate change. To do this, they should strengthen their strategic collaboration in global climate governance, look for new ways to work together in old ways, and make their cooperation more effective and efficient.

The full-scale war in Ukraine, started by Russia in late February 2022 has both direct and indirect environmental and climate impact. The direct impact usually implies destruction of ecosystems and wildlife, chemical pollution, pollution from the use of warfare and infrastructure destruction. Yet, indirect consequences might have a less obvious effect. From the re-shaping of the global energy, metal, food and fertilizers markets to changes in countries’ environmental and climate policies and actions, the war in Ukraine provokes global change in global and national environmental and climate governance, including Russia’s environmental and climate policies and environmental activism in the country.