This section presents an overview of climate and governance information for each of the selected case study countries and provides context in terms of their multi-level governance structures. The selection of each of the case study countries is justified with expected areas of similarity and difference to England.
England
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
130,278 |
56,536,000 |
434 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita (US $): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
34,690 |
2 |
186.5 |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
63.07 |
4.6 |
82.4 |
England’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) commits to reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels. To meet this, the government has set out actions in the Net Zero Strategy, Build Back Greener, which aim to enable local areas to deliver net zero by setting clearer expectations, providing resources, and building capacity and capability. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) aims to take overall responsibility for improving coordination with local government and other local actors on the effective design and delivery of local net zero policies, as part of the department’s overall responsibility and wider leadership on delivering net zero.
The Climate Change Act 2008 set legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The act requires the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to commit to a net zero target, which requires the UK to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
The structure of local government in England varies. In most of England there are two tiers of local government, the county and the district, with responsibility for council services split between them. London boroughs, other major metropolitan boroughs, and parts of shire England operate under a single tier structure with councils responsible for all services in their area. In total there are 317 local authorities in England made up of five different types: county councils, district councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts, and London boroughs. In a number of areas, combined authorities also exist where a group of two or more councils have entered a formal arrangement to take collective decisions about cross-boundary issues. Combined authorities are technically still two tiers of local government but together they can take advantage of powers and resources that can be devolved from central government.
Most council revenue comes from central government grants. Local authorities also get revenue from council tax - which is a property tax levied on residential properties - and business rates - a property tax levied on business premises. Councils in England receive no core funding for climate action and are required to compete for short-term funding that is often unpredictable and resource intensive. Funding for local climate action comes from a combination of the Local Government Finance Settlement, other government grants and support schemes, borrowing, and private finance. The LGA and Local Partnerships have produced a Green Finance Guide, updated in 2022, to provide both practical guidance and examples of good practice to support councils in England to find the most appropriate and affordable ways to finance their green ambition. Money to fund climate action and nature restoration projects can be brought in via legal and planning mechanisms, such as Section 106 agreements or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Section 106 agreements refer to cases where a local authority approves a development, such as new homes, based on the requirement that the developer also funds other related projects. While local authorities are authorised to levy and set the rate of council tax, revenues from this are not solely for climate action. Additionally, it is important to note that councils are currently experiencing significant financial barriers with a “£4 billion funding gap over the next two years just to keep services standing still”. This is due to a combination of effects from the pandemic and a rising demand for services. Almost 1 in 5 councils believe it is likely (very or fairly) that they will issue a Section 114 notice in the next year, and half are not confident they will have enough funding to complete their legal duties in the 2024/2025 financial year.
The Netherlands
Case study relevance
The Netherlands was selected for its decentralised governance structure that involves collaboration across three government levels and waterboards, and the strong national focus on adaptation and flood risk mitigation. Furthermore, as an EU member state, the Netherlands’ experience can provide valuable lessons with respect to EU regulations and contexts.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
41,540 |
17,703,000 |
520 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita (US $): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
57,767 |
4 |
Not available for the Netherlands |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
62.24 |
7.47 |
76.4 |
The Netherlands is part of the European Union’s joint NDC commitment of economy-wide net domestic reduction of at least 55 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
There are four levels of Dutch Government: The Dutch national parliament (central government), 12 provinces, 342 municipalities (gemeente) and the 21 water boards - who are responsible for the country’s surface water, including the management of polders, dikes, and other water works and flood prevention. The water boards are independent of administrative governing bodies (provinces and municipalities), are directly elected, and have power to tax residents.
A decentralisation programme in the Netherlands began in 2007 and has since transferred many responsibilities to the provinces and municipalities including the regional economic policy, nature, spatial planning and traffic and transport. Provinces and municipalities have a high degree of local and regional autonomy, but with general ambitions and directions set at a national level, with the national government implementing energy and environmental policies.
The Climate Agreement (2019/2020) is the basis for climate action in the Netherlands, covering the electricity, industry, built environment, traffic and transport, and agriculture sectors. All levels of government (including the water boards) decided and agreed on the ambitions and actions in the Climate Agreement, and there are clearly defined roles and responsibilities for different levels of government. Having representation and involvement from all levels of government during the process of drafting the Climate Agreement has resulted in there being a common vision and goal aligning all stakeholders (taken from interview data). The level of clarity provided in the climate agreement for different sectors and different actors is extensive. For instance, in the agriculture and land use sector, specific measures for different actors, estimated emission reductions, and financing are all established for multiple themes, including livestock farming, forestry, soil preservation, and outdoor cultivation (as examples). This helps keep track of how much money is expected to go into different actions and provides a timeframe to do so.
National programmes (for example the Delta Programme and the Tour de Force Programme) have associated funding at the national level, and this national budget is divided among municipalities within the context of these programmes. This facilitates a degree of consistency across different municipalities. In some cases, the allocation of funds to a specific municipality is linked to their ambitions signed in the Climate Agreement. Whilst climate action funding is currently regarded as sufficient by interviewees, with the legislative landscape changing considerably following a new government in December 2023 and new challenges arising, it is expected that funding will need to increase. For the investment side of climate action, the Dutch government has significant funding available for renewable energy infrastructure. Finally, whilst the central government can also provide subsidies to different municipalities for climate action, this is not common and is mostly used by the smaller municipalities with less capacity (taken from interview data).
Large-scale programmes, such as the Delta Programme and the Tour de Force, are coordinated at the national level by national government, with collaboration of all levels of government. These examples are explored in more detail in the empirical findings in Appendix A.1.
Municipalities commonly collaborate and form networks, usually with neighbouring municipalities and organisations they have prior relationships with, creating a region with a specific shared interest or goal. Working collaboratively means municipalities can attract funding for projects they otherwise may not have the resources to do, and to make efficiencies when implementing climate action (taken from interview data).
In the Netherlands, provinces oversee administrative and financial supervision of municipalities and play a key role in vertical co-ordination. There are some provincial taxes, but national government covers most of the budgetary needs of the provinces through transfers from national funds. Municipalities have local taxes and so do the water boards. For example, residents of the city of Rotterdam make four kinds of payment related to water: payment for drinking water (based on quantity used), sewerage taxes, and two types of water board taxes – one for water systems management and one for water quality. Municipalities can set and use these taxes.
“We are used to doing a lot of things bottom-up, but looking at the speed of climate change, sometimes it is helpful to accelerate action when it is directed top-down”.
Overall, interviewees perceived the degree of local autonomy, the technical capacities of local governments, the shared visions and goals across different levels of government, and the degree of collaboration and cooperation (and subsequent clear ownership) in developing national level programmes, as strengths of the Dutch multi-level climate governance system. Whilst climate action in the Netherlands has been distributed to local authorities with tangible benefits in terms of implementing place-based and specific actions, interviewees felt that the national government could take a stronger role in setting national direction through legislation, to accelerate the rate of implementation. Another key challenge for the Netherlands is the relationship between politics and policy, with suggestions from interviewees that local policy should strive to be as independent of politics as possible.
Norway
Case study relevance
Norway was chosen for the potential learnings for England in terms of financing climate action from the Klimasats fund. Additionally, Oslo was the first city to pioneer Climate Budgeting, making it interesting to explore the governance arrangements that enabled this approach to climate action governance. The country’s effective communication and collaboration between different levels of government offer valuable insights. As a non-EU member, Norway offers lessons on governing climate action outside of the European Commission framework.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
385,203 |
5,457,127 |
15 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita (US $): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
89,154 |
2 |
Not estimated for Norway |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
64.47 |
6.73 |
81 |
In November 2022, Norway formally updated its NDC, committing to strengthening its 2030 NDC target to at least a 55 per cent reduction below 1990 levels.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
Norway has a two tier-system of local government with 11 county authorities and 356 municipalities. Local governments in Norway are responsible for a significant portion of welfare, infrastructure provisions, and climate action, however there are national guidelines for energy and climate planning. The national government mandates that municipalities must have a climate action plan, but it does not specify the contents of the plan and local government decides the level of ambition (taken from interview data). There is coordination between different levels of government; for example, the national government created Norway’s Zero-Growth Goal which provides the framework for land-use and transport policy for large urban areas.
According to interviewees, Norway’s system of governance is characterised by effective communication between different levels of government and within the same levels. This facilitates the exchange of information and the sharing of best practice across municipalities. The organisational structure is considered flat, which means it is not always necessary to communicate with the national government to implement action. Interviewees discussed how Norway’s four largest cities have formed a Climate Forum. This forum operates on a voluntary basis and is particularly effective in addressing climate issues, given that these cities share common challenges. The forum facilitates communication between national and regional governments, essentially creating a peer-to-peer city network. In recent years, these cities have collaborated on joint exercises to release a joint declaration on a key issue and hosted events during an annual festival for political empowerment and democracy that highlights local and national developments. The most recent event focused on energy, raising awareness of the importance of multi-level governance, and identifying missing links such as national regulation (taken from interview data).
The Klimasats Fund is a Norwegian government initiative that was established in 2016 to support local climate initiatives, experimentation, and facilitate climate cooperation between various actors. The fund is administered by a team within the Norwegian Environment Agency. By the end of 2021, the fund had financed over 1,500 projects and spent over €113 million. The fund aims to support local climate initiatives that contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a low-emission society. The fund provides grants to municipalities, county municipalities, and certain municipal enterprises. The grants are intended to be a trigger for the implementation of measures, and the municipalities must contribute with their own resources to match-fund a percentage of the overall action cost. This system is perceived to help create ownership of the actions among local governments, as they are also responsible for contributing some of the overall cost (taken from interview data). The fund has supported a wide range of projects, including the development of cycling infrastructure, the installation of solar panels, and the electrification of public transport. The programme offers several application deadlines throughout the year, allowing local authorities to apply for funding near the time of procurement instead of waiting until the annual application date. Local government can also apply to The General Purpose Grant Scheme. This scheme provides funds for local governments who are able to allocate these funds as they see fit without any additional constraints from the central government.
“Closer collaboration between the national and municipal levels is needed, with clearer expectations from national level for municipalities, outlining exactly what their expected roles are. Not all municipalities have the resources or the knowledge to implement action by themselves”.
The City of Oslo has adopted a pioneering approach to climate budgeting, which involves the creation of a dedicated Climate Budget. The Climate Budget serves as a governance tool for the city's climate work and outlines the measures and responsible agencies that are working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the municipality. The Climate Budget is updated annually and covers the entire economic plan period. The Climate Budget also identifies the national and regional measures that directly contribute to emission reductions in Oslo. The Climate Budget comes with a table of measures and responsible agencies, which report three times a year on their progress against KPIs. This has simplified the process of tracking progress on climate action and ensures that climate action is organised and centred around the budgeting process, embedding it into administrative processes (taken from interview data).
Overall, interviewees perceived the Klimasats fund, in terms of its flexibility, ease of application procedures, and scale of funding available, to be a strength of climate governance in Norway. On the other hand, the biggest challenges faced by local governments in Norway is the ambiguous national direction for climate action, and the need for national government to provide clearer expectations and guidelines for local government, recognising that local governments are “on the ground” in implementing climate action.
New Zealand
Case study relevance
New Zealand’s recent legal mandate makes it an interesting case study to explore from the perspective of mandated multi-level coordination. Since November 2022, local governments are required to consider national adaptation and emissions reduction plans in their regional and district planning. Understanding what this looks like in practice across sectors holds potential learning opportunities for England.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
268,021 |
5,124,000 |
20 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita ($): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
48,781 |
2 |
Not estimated for New Zealand |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
50.55 |
6.16 |
80.3 |
New Zealand’s NDC covers the period 2021-2030 with a main target of a 50 per cent reduction of net emissions below gross 2005 level by 2030.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
The New Zealand government consists of two tiers: central and local government. The central government makes decisions affecting New Zealand as a whole, whilst the local government looks after the interests and needs of specific areas. The local government sector consists of 11 regional councils, 61 territorial authorities (11 are city councils and 50 are district councils) and 6 unitary councils, which are territorial authorities with regional council responsibilities.
In New Zealand, domestic climate legislation requires the government to set emissions budgets underpinned by emissions reduction plans that include comprehensive measures across all economic sectors. New Zealand has developed a National Adaptation Plan and a National Emissions Reduction Plan across different sectors including the natural environment, homes, buildings and places, infrastructure, communities, and the economy and financial system. Since 2022, local governments in New Zealand must “have regard to” the National Adaptation Plan and National Emissions Reduction Plan when they prepare or change a regional policy statement, regional plan or district plan, acknowledging that local government is on the front line of climate change. However, interviewees suggested that the new legislation has had limited impact so far, partially related to ambiguity in the National Adaptation Plan. There is no guidance about the role for local government. On the other hand, the National Emissions Reduction Plan is considered to have had a small impact on local government, through the creation of regionalised transport emission reduction targets, which have given direction to local government for their regional and council transport plans (taken from interview data). Despite this, interviewees were uncertain how much of the content of the local plans was a result of having to “have regard to” national plans and how much was due to the political leanings of a given council.
Local government uses rates to raise money, however climate action is just one part of the local government budget and therefore funding for climate action can be limited. The Climate Emergency Response Fund is a funding mechanism from the central government which has specific criteria for the types of projects it can fund, and the fund is generated through the national Emissions Trading Scheme. There is no central government funding available for local government to implement regular climate adaptation actions. In one interviewee’s perspective, this may have resulted in the local government taking limited action on climate adaptation, to avoid long-term commitments that might not be deliverable (taken from interview data).
Overall, the interviewee from local government in New Zealand perceived there to be a need for national government to acknowledge the important strategic position of local government in implementing climate action, and clearer direction and support for local government to implement climate action. The transport sector was regarded as a strength in New Zealand’s climate governance approach, as this is a sector where local government has the most autonomy (compared with other sectors) and actions are co-funded by the transport regions, taking some financial pressure of local government budgets.
A 2023 report from the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs on the Future of Local Government identified five key shifts to help the governance system evolve to improve the environment and the wellbeing of New Zealanders over the next 30 years:
- Strengthen local democracy
- Develop authentic relationships with hapū/iwi and Māori
- Strengthen councils’ focus on holistic wellbeing
- Develop genuine partnerships between national and local governments
- Provide more equitable funding for local government.
The United States of America (USA)
Case study relevance
The United States provides an example of extreme devolution of powers to local government. It is the only case study country which has a federal system, where power is constitutionally divided between the national government, states, and local government. For this reason, a separate approach for the United States was used, exploring mini case studies in different states which highlighted relevant multi-level governance learnings and examples of both intra- and inter-state coordination and collaboration. The case studies were the following:
- Florida: adaptation to sea level rise – Demonstrating a collaboration and coordination of local governments to adapt to sea level rise.
- Texas: renewable electricity – The governance in the state enables a unique electricity market structure with a high percentage of renewable energy generation.
- The Northeast region: onshore and offshore wind at scale– multi-level collaboration between and within states to implement offshore wind at scale.
- Massachusetts: rural areas as well as urban areas are a focus of state-led climate action.
The findings from these case studies are included in the relevant sections in the empirical findings in Appendix 1.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
9,833,520 |
333,287,557 |
37 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita (US $): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
70,248 |
3 |
120.47 |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
38.53 |
13.03 |
78.5 |
The latest NDC for the United States is to reduce net GHG emissions by 50-52 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Federal policy to achieve the NDC is dependent on the administration. The Democratic Biden administration passed the largest investment in climate change mitigation in the history of the United States.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
There are three tiers of government in the USA: the federal government with legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the state government, and the local government with counties and municipalities. Climate action is implemented at all levels of government in the USA, including local, state, and federal. The level of climate action and level of multi stakeholder collaboration is highly varied between different states. Approaches are not consistent, neither across the same level of government nor between different levels of government, nor is there an attempt to align local climate action at a national level (taken from interview data).
On a state and local level, different policies across multiple disciplines are being implemented to achieve emission reduction targets. Sub-national and regional partnership structures play a strong role in climate governance in the USA, and there are several partnership and collaboration programmes bringing together local government to address climate action (taken from interview data). Additionally, in and between states, there are often important collaborations with the business and private sectors, and the private sector is regarded as playing an important role in funding climate action (taken from interview data).
"There needs to be better alignment of climate action policies between local governments, across different states, or with the national level..."
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) law was passed in August 2022. The law provides tax incentives and funding programmes to build a clean energy economy, lower energy costs, tackle climate change, and reduce harmful pollution. The law is expected to drive global climate action and help the United States meet its Paris Agreement commitment. The law provides funding for clean energy and climate programmes at the programme level, which can be accessed by state, local, territorial, and tribal leaders*, the private sector, non-profit organisations, homeowners, and communities. The law also provides rebates and tax breaks to incentivise climate action at the local level. Following the passing of the IRA, interviewees perceive there to be sufficient federal funding for climate action, yet demand is expected to increase (taken from interview data). Much of federal funding is competitive, which municipalities can apply for, and different states can levy different kinds of taxes to fund their climate action.
* The US government published the "Inflation Reduction Act Tribal Guidebook" presenting the IRA and the funding programmes for which Tribal Nations are eligible. There are specific programmes and sources of funds allocated for tribal communities, recognising the vulnerability of tribal nations to climate change.
With the present Biden Administration, broad climate goals have been established at a national level which serves as a general guidance for states and cities. From the national targets, there is a joined-up bottom-up and top-down approach to the federal government, states, and cities to meet in the middle, which is particularly important for smaller states and cities. The high degree of devolution in the United States has also resulted in a reduced ability of cities to pass different climate laws. With different politically orientated states, they can choose to allow cities to pass climate action laws, and the same goes for funding, where most of the funding comes in through states and they can choose to restrict funding for climate action.
There are multiple examples of innovative funding models used to fund climate action at the local level (taken from interview data). In 2020 the city of Denver voted to approve the Climate Protection Fund, which created a city-wide sales tax estimated to raise approximately $40 million annually dedicated to funding climate action. California implemented a statewide multi-sectoral cap-and-trade programme in 2013, and the revenues received by the state from this programme fund the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, used by state agencies to implement programmes that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund stipulates that 35 per cent of revenues are required to be directed to environmentally disadvantaged and low-income communities.
Overall, interviewees regarded the power of peer-to-peer and sub-national partnership structures as a strength of the USA’s climate governance. On the other hand, whilst devolving powers to states and local authorities has facilitated climate action, a weak coordination with national and state level policies (and, at times, restrictions at the state level) was identified by interviewees as a challenge. In particular, one interviewee shared how they perceived federal funding to generally align with cities, but the state level restricts cities being able to access and use this funding to implement climate action, leading to an inability in some states for cities to lead on climate action (taken from interview data). Additionally, with such distinct governmental entities, the ability of local governments to engage with the state and federal governments is considered unclear, and there is also a lack of clarity among local governments over what is allowed and what is not in terms of multi-level collaboration and communication. According to one interviewee, Mayors need to be regarded as an implementation partner and not just another stakeholder by higher levels of government (taken from interview data).
South Korea
Case study relevance
South Korea is considered the most top-down in terms of climate governance of the selected case study countries, despite the Local Autonomy Act. Their approach offers a valuable perspective to understand how climate action is implemented and managed primarily at a national level. Exploring the legislations and policies at the national level, and the implications for implementing climate action at the local level, will provide insights into the effectiveness of top-down multi-level governance in fostering a comprehensive response to environmental challenges.
Overview of governance and climate metrics
Overview of size and population
Size (km2): |
Population: |
Population density (/km2): |
100,210 |
51,628,117 |
533 |
Governance structure
GDP per capita (US $): |
Tiers of government: |
World Bank central government debt (% of GDP): |
34,997 |
3 |
49.16 |
Climate performance and commitments
Climate change performance index: |
CO2 emissions per capita: |
Energy Trilemma Index score: |
24.91 |
10.99 |
73.6 |
South Korea’s latest NDC was updated in December 2021 and sets an emissions reduction target of 40 per cent below 2018 levels by 2030.
Overview of multi-level governance structure
Local governments are classified into high-level and low-level local governments. The number of high-level local governments increased to 17 with the inclusion of the Sejong Special Self-Governing City in July 2012, which includes Seoul Special City, six metropolises, eight provinces, and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. The number of low-level local governments stands at 226, which includes 75 cities (si), 82 counties (gun), and 69 districts (gu).
While South Korea enacted the Local Autonomous System in June 1995, the country has a strong top-down approach to climate governance and the central government sets and enacts the national direction for climate action. This approach has been effective in coordinating and driving climate action from a national perspective. Interview respondents felt that this strong top-down approach has been beneficial to the implementation of climate action (taken from interview data), however this approach has also limited the autonomy of local government to implement local and more specific climate action.
In South Korea climate action is driven by the national government, and the scale of this leadership is much larger and more powerful than in other countries. South Korea is a country of regulations and is in practice a country of top-down control, not only of climate action. This is very effective for the rapid diffusion of climate action, but it is also a constraint on creative or spontaneous climate action at the local level.
Legally guaranteed delegated and compulsory measures are in place to ensure that national level structures are implemented at the local level in South Korea. For example, the creation and execution of local master plans in accordance with the National Comprehensive Plan mandated. The central government establishes a master plan, and then local governments implement the master plan at the local level. In South Korea, local governments have very little scope for autonomy. The “Local Self-Governance Act” mandates that local governments operate within the limits designated by national law. For instance, Seoul’s proposal to mandate energy-saving design for small, older buildings was rejected because it was not mandated by national law. General policy co-ordination between the central and local governments is carried out by the Local Government Policy Council. The Central Government Policy Delivery Council also assists in communication between government levels. A joint annual evaluation assesses the performance of local governments in executing delegated responsibilities and state-funded projects (mostly using output indicators such as number of inspections conducted).
Interviewees observed that dedicated local government climate units are rare, or otherwise small in scale with limited resources. As an example, in the province of Jeollanam-do, there are four part-time staff at the Carbon Neutrality Support Centre (taken from interview data). Seoul Metropolitan Government has a Climate and Environment Division and the Carbon Neutrality Support Centre (part of Seoul Institute of Technology), which leads climate action in the region.
South Korea’s 2022 Green New Deal is a national government-led programme that aims to create jobs and offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic while laying the foundations for future economic growth. The plan focuses on a Digital New Deal and Green New Deal and includes overarching policy support to strengthen employment and social safety nets. The Green New Deal focuses on renewable energy, green infrastructure, and the industrial sector. It includes the central and local governments’ involvement to bring innovation and jobs to the regional economy, with half of the money invested outside Seoul. According to interviewees, the Green New Deal has had significant implications for local governments. Large-scale projects that were previously planned and promoted at the local level with the support of the central government have been refined and promoted through the Green New Deal(taken from interview data). Additionally, projects related to climate action tailored to local characteristics have been promoted based on the Green New Deal. Essential policies to promote carbon neutrality, such as green remodelling of public buildings, have been supported and implemented at the local level, laying the foundation for accepting and promoting the future carbon-neutral era. This includes the support of green remodelling experts and designers. The Green New Deal has thus enabled local governments to take a more active role in promoting sustainable development.
Overall, interviewees in South Korea suggested that local governments hold limited powers to implement climate action, which is a significant challenge. They suggested that national government could delegate clear responsibilities and roles for local government. The short-term appointments of civil servants in national government roles may also be a hindrance to long-term planning (taken from interview data).