OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024)

341

SEEN BUT OVERLOOKED? THE EMERGENCE OF REGIONAL LEADERSHIP IN

POLYCENTRIC CLIMATE GOVERNANCE AFTER PARIS

ANA RAQUEL ALMEIDA DIAS

id9204@uminho.pt

PhD candidate in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Minho

(Portugal). She also holds a master's degree in Political Science and a bachelor's degree in

International Relations, both from the University of Minho. Currently, her research project

focuses on analysing the dynamics of global climate governance with a particular focus on

regional federal actors. Collaborator at Research Center CICP, University of Minho. ORCID: 0000-

0002-5504-5930

SANDRINA ANTUNES

santunes@eeg.uminho.pt

Doutorada em Ciência Política pela Universidade Libre de Brexelas, scientific fellow desde 2013.

Mestre em Antropologia Política e licenciada em Relações Internacionais pela Universidade do

Minho. Colaborou com o Committee of the Regions e com a Assembleia das Regiões Europeias.

Os interesses de investigação encontram-se na intersecção da Ciência Política e dos Estudos

Europeus. Member of the Research Center CICP, University of Minho, Braga (Portugal). ORCID:

0000-0002-7009-9208

Abstract

As the Paris Agreement formalized a climate regime transition towards a more polycentric

approach, non-state agents have been perceived as influential actors in global climate

governance. Observing the implementation of climate targets by regional governments in

federal or decentralized systems, the dynamics of climate leadership are also being defined

by these actors. While recent literature recognized the emergence of such dynamics in

increasingly polycentric structures, the consideration of regional action in the domain of

climate leadership demonstrates a shortage of conceptual and empirical studies. Reviewing

the existent references on polycentric governance, but also climate leadership, this paper is

guided by two goals: (i) to problematize and acknowledge the literature gap on the

phenomenon of regional leadership in global climate governance; and (ii) justify the relevance

and need of developing such study.

Keywords

Paris Agreement, Polycentric Governance, Regional Climate Leadership.

Resumo

O Acordo de Paris formalizou uma transição do regime climático para uma abordagem mais

policêntrica que reconhece os agentes não estatais como atores influentes na governação

climática global. Tendo em conta a implementação de metas climáticas por governos regionais

em sistemas federais ou descentralizados, as dinâmicas da liderança climática também estão

a ser definidas por estes atores. Embora a literatura reconheça o surgimento de dinâmicas de

liderança alternativas em estruturas cada vez mais policêntricas, poucos estudos analisam a

ação regional no domínio do clima quer através de estudos conceptuais ou empíricos. Revendo

as referências existentes sobre governação policêntrica, mas também sobre liderança

climática, este artigo é guiado por dois objetivos: (i) problematizar e reconhecer a lacuna na

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

342

literatura sobre o fenómeno da liderança regional na governação climática global; e (ii)

justificar a relevância e necessidade do desenvolvimento deste mesmo estudo.

Palavras chave

Acordo de Paris; Governação Policêntrica; Liderança Climática Regional

How to cite this article

Dias, Ana Raquel Almeida; Antunes, Sandrina (2023). Seen but overlooked? The Emergence of

Regional Leadership in Polycentric Climate Governance after Paris. Janus.net, e-journal of

international relations, Vol14 N2, November 2023-April 2024. Consulted [online] in date of last

view, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.14.2.16

Article received on May 31, 2023 and accepted on September 4, 2023

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

343

SEEN BUT OVERLOOKED? THE EMERGENCE OF REGIONAL

LEADERSHIP IN POLYCENTRIC CLIMATE GOVERNANCE

AFTER PARIS

ANA RAQUEL ALMEIDA DIAS

SANDRINA ANTUNES

Introduction

Global climate governance is currently a fast-changing domain denoting dispersed and

multilevel patterns of initiatives by a wide range of actors (Jordan et al., 2015). Described

by Ostrom (2010) as the emergence of a polycentric environment, recent developments

within the international climate regime (Falkner et al., 2010; Hickman, 2015; Jordan et

al., 2018) confirm the trends of greater polycentricity by acknowledging the role of non-

state actors, namely regional governments. Although recent literature in the field

acknowledges such premise (Bulkeley, 2014; Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017; Jordan et al.,

2018), little research has addressed the role of regional climate leadership in a

polycentric context.

According to the 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is an

urgency for climate action to take place at multiple governmental levels and calls for

efforts far beyond current international, supranational, national, and sub-national

commitments. Considering the failure of monocentric (i.e., action by the state as a

unitary power) solutions up to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement has acknowledged

the need for a more polycentric (i.e., state and non-state action in a multilevel context)

climate regime. It has done so by encouraging climate efforts of non-state actors or, in

other words, Paris has recognized the agency of independent units beyond the state

(supranational, regional, local, public, and private) in the effective long-term response

to climate change (Hale, 2016). In this framework, and observing the increased activity

of climate agency by regional governments in federal contexts towards the

implementation of climate goals, we notice the emergence of regional climate leadership

in polycentric governance. In other words, a functional need has opened an opportunity

for regional actors within federal political systems, to position themselves as agents who

influence the course of global climate governance, thus acting beyond the state.

In what the literature is concerned, there has been a general acknowledgment of non-

state actors as important entities in the governance of climate change, while noting a

contextual opportunity for these to perform climate leadership beyond the state (Jordan

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

344

et al., 2015; Jordan et al., 2018; Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017; Liefferink and Wurzel,

2017; Wurzel et al., 2019). Being recent and still evolving domains, research on

polycentric climate governance (Jordan et al., 2018) and general climate leadership

(Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017) literature have been dedicated to the development of

theoretical and conceptual knowledge while empirical observations have briefly

considered the role of local governments (i.e., the lower level of administration within a

given state such as municipalities or cities.) as well as private entities (i..e., individuals

or collectivities who are not state-controlled or affiliated such as civil society, NGOs, and

companies). Although contributions in describing and explaining the structural intricacies

of an emerging climate governance reality have been significant, this paper

acknowledges that the current state of the art is still lacking a conceptual framework that

effectively captures regional climate leadership in both theoretical and empirical terms.

In sum, this paper is guided by two objectives: first, the identification of a literature gap

concerning regional climate action and, more specifically the phenomenon of regional

climate leadership; second, justify the relevance of proceeding with such study

concerning both conceptual and empirical analysis. The remainder of this article is divided

into four different parts: to start with, we contextualize and locate a favorable context

for the emergence of regional climate leadership; in second place, a literature review on

climate leadership within polycentric governance is presented to identify a gap; in second

place, we demonstrate the importance of considering the role of regional actors in climate

leadership within a polycentric context while also presenting its conceptual framing; in

the following section we briefly analyze empirical evidence from Québec and California

on the emergence of the phenomenon; finally, we close the article with a summary of

our major arguments and point future research paths.

1. The climate regime: An opportunity for leadership beyond the state

As noticed in the literature (Stripple and Stephan, 2013; Bulkeley et al., 2014; Jacobs,

2019), shifts are taking place in the governance of climate affairs as part of broader

changes in the international system. Within this context, the Paris Agreement is deemed

to have formalized important developments in the climate regime when considering its

institutionalization of governance beyond the state (Jordan et al., 2015; Dorsch and

Flachsland, 2017; Pattberg and Widerberg, 2017; Jordan et al., 2018).

Established in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC), sets the global framework that deals with the global climate system and,

particularly, with the mitigation of global climate change. In other words, the UNFCCC

represents the international climate regime which, in Krasner’s (1982: 185) words,

consists of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor

expectations converge in the domain of climate. While the UNFCCC sets the broad

principles and norms of the climate regime, specifications on its rules and procedures

have been defined in its foundational agreements: the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and

second, the Paris Agreement (2015) which, emerged to replace the guidelines previously

established in the 1990s. As Paris abandoned Kyoto's monocentric approach (i.e., action

controlled by a single unitary power (Aligica and Tarko, 2012: 244), the rules and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

345

procedures of climate governance have adopted polycentric guidelines (i.e., multilevel

patterns of governing (Ostrom, 2010a) therefore, unfolding a paradigm transition in

climate politics (Jordan et al., 2018: 135).

Paris Agreement, article 7th, (2015) acknowledges the broadening universe of

international affairs as complex and fragmented by noting that climate change is a global

challenge faced by all with local, subnational, national, regional, and international

dimensions and that it is a key component of and makes a contribution to the long-term

global response to climate change (United Nations, 2015: 9). Essentially, Paris formalizes

a transition from a regulatory, state-centered approach to a more fragmented

environment (Hale, 2016: 12), or, in other words, a shift from a monocentric to a

polycentric governance approach (Jordan et al., 2018) in terms of regime rules and

decision-making procedures.

The central condition of polycentricity notes that political authority is dispersed among

separate units in a fragmented governance context with overlapping jurisdictions, but

which do not stand in a hierarchical relationship to each other (Skelcher, 2005: 89). In

such environment where several entities have their independent agency recognized

(Ostrom, 2010a: 552), we first hold that polycentricity offers a considerable opportunity

for the involved units to be influential actors in climate governance (Wurzel et al., 2019).

Second, besides opening an opportunity for an independent agency of entities,

polycentric governance also generates dynamics that amplify the action and impact of

the relatively autonomous units who wish to perform self-governance in this context: as

units maintain relations among themselves (Jordan et al., 2018: 147), they take each

other into account in competitive relationships, enter into various contractual and

cooperative undertakings or have recourse to central mechanisms to resolve conflicts

(Ostrom et al., 1961: 831); they build a polycentric system that enhances innovation,

learning, adaptation, trustworthiness, levels of cooperation of participants, and the

achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes at multiple scales

(Ostrom, 2010: 552).

In this context of paradigm transition in the climate regime, we apprehend that regional

governments may take advantage of an opportunity to become more autonomous in the

implementation of global climate targets beyond the nation-state by performing climate

leadership. This paper considers the noticeable role of regional governments in this

transformational process toward polycentric governance in the climate arena (Bulkeley

et al., 2014: 55).

2. Leadership in polycentric climate governance: a literature review

Acknowledging the literature calls to understand an emerging reality in the domain of

climate change as part of broader shifts in global politics (Hoffmann, 2011 and 2013;

Bulkeley et al., 2013; Falkner, 2016), our research relies on the existing literature of

polycentricity and climate leadership to identify and understand a new phenomenon

entitled regional climate leadership.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

346

As the arena of climate change started reflecting larger trends in global politics (Hale and

Held, 2011), subnational governments (regional and local), non-governmental

organizations, business, individual, and non-state actors, in general, are recognized to

be taking responsibility and adopting new approaches in the governance of climate

change (Bulkeley et al., 2014). Considering this fact, the literature has also reflected a

shift from state-centered classical approaches (Barret, 2005; Hare et al., 2010) towards

an academic debate that considers new forms of climate governance by looking at vertical

and horizontal dynamics through which is taking place (Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017).

With the intent of bridging a wide set of proliferating concepts to describe an emerging

reality of complex dynamics (regime complex, fragmented governance, transnational

climate governance), Elinor Ostrom (2010) dedicated her last work to climate change

and suggested the rescue of the term polycentricity

as an analytical approach to

understand an emerging structure of climate governance and what efforts can be

improved to face this threat (Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017: 47).

Given that there was potential to generate co-benefits through climate actions occurring

at multiple scales (Ostrom, 2010b; Ostrom 2012), Ostrom notices the emergence of

spontaneous, dispersed, and multilevel governing dynamics from bottom-up sources,

below and alongside the UNFCCC. In her work, Ostrom (2010) described ‘polycentric

systems as multiple governing authorities at different scales (…) each unit exercises

considerable independence to make norms and rules within a specific domain (Ostrom,

2010: 552). Ostrom’s conception of polycentric systems, reveals a broader framework

by precisely considering the relationship between the various levels, units, and domains

(Jordan et al., 2018: 5) that do not necessarily replace each other. Considering Paris'

encouragement of new forms of governing such as annual events and technical expert

meetings, enrollment of non-state and subnational actors in emission commitments, and

then the introduction of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by states, the

UNFCCC is being observed by recent scholarship as increasingly reflecting polycentric

governance. Interestingly, Liefferink and Wurzel (2017) notice that polycentric conditions

offer great potential for climate leadership opportunities to a large universe of actors. In

addition, Wurzel et al. (2019) and Wurzel et al. (2021) also note the relevance of MLG

and polycentric framework lenses to understand how different actors employ leadership

and for what purposes.

In the specific domain of climate leadership in polycentric contexts, the work of Liefferink

and Wurzel (2017) and Wurzel et al. (2019) made significant contributions: (1)

clarification of concepts (leaders, pioneers, laggards, and followers); (2) delimitating and

reorganizing a set of analytical distinctions (positioning of leaders and pioneers according

to their internal and external environmental ambitions). Liefferink and Wurzel (2017)

suggest a two-level matrix to qualify states’ environmental policies and therefore, identify

leadership (Table 1). They distinguish actors according to their internal ‘face’ – the

environmental ambitions of domestic policies – and their external ‘face’ – the

Having been mentioned in 1961 by Vincent Ostrom in the context of metropolitan governance, he used the

term 'polycentric systems' to identify a system of public services (or goods) that may be provided by

different agencies that are self-organized by a variety of actors in urban American environments (Jordan et

al., 2018: 4).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

347

environmental ambitions displayed in their foreign policy: (a) Laggards have low internal

and external policy intentions; (b) pioneers are ahead of the pack (first-movers)

regarding their domestic policies, but do not have a direct intention to influence followers

in international dimension although they do it unintentionally by setting an example; (c)

symbolic leaders are demonstrative in the international sphere, but are not consequential

in their domestic policies; (d) pushers take the lead domestically by setting the highest

climate standards regardless of any conditioners, and intentionally lobby other actors to

follow their example. Within this frame of reference, the phenomenon of climate

leadership includes the behavior of pushers and pioneers, actors who are either first

movers or who set the highest policy ambitions while influencing the course of climate

governance internally and externally in an indirect (pioneers) or direct way (pushers).

Table 1. Ambitions and Positions of Environmental Actors

Internal ‘face’

External ‘face’

Low internal environmental

ambitions

High internal

environmental ambitions

Low external

environmental ambitions

(a) Laggard

(b) Pioneer

High external

environmental ambitions

(d) Pusher

Source: Lieferink and Wurzel, 2017.

The grounding framework of climate leadership conceived by Liefferink and Wurzel

(2017) is an important starting point for looking at the internal and external angles of

the phenomenon. However, when considering its application to regional leadership in

climate governance, we acknowledge that its conception in terms of internal and external

ambitions (i.e., followers’ attraction or not) still leaves much to be said on how these

specific actors express their climate leadership. Briefly, an important political dimension

is missing concerning how regional federal actors take advantage of Paris to fulfill climate

leadership.

Despite the importance of recent literature developments, both in the domain of

polycentric governance and climate leadership, little research has been dedicated to a

deeper conceptual development of climate leadership under polycentric conditions and,

in what concerns the role of regional governments, particularly within federal systems,

no study has been pursued. As such, our contribution is to acknowledge the literature

gap while noticing the relevance of studying an emerging phenomenon that has not been

contemplated yet.

3. Regional climate leadership as politics of self-governance

3.1. Regional climate leadership as the ‘capacity’ to lead

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

348

As polycentricity explains how a regime shift slowly takes place, it also acknowledges

that a considerable number of entities in the international system are exposed to the

opportunity to influence a specific issue field like climate change (Jordan et al., 2018:

136). As the role of federal regions has not been studied through such a prism, nor

applied, more specifically, by the framework of climate leadership, the subtle emergence

of a phenomenon has been seen but overlooked by these fields: regional climate

leadership.

To begin with, the regional level of analysis is of considerable importance for the

successful implementation of climate targets. The term ‘region’ refers to the territorial

unit immediately below the sovereign state (Kuznetsov, 2015: 22), more precisely,

entities situated between the local and national levels with a capacity for authoritative

decision-making (Hooghe et al., 2010: 4). Although climate goals and ambitions are

defined and discussed at the international level, their implementation falls within the

scope of action of each state and, within each state, of their respective subnational

entities. To this end, the specific level of governance that has a central role to play in

climate change policies is regional, particularly federated regions where there is the

autonomy of action in a set of legislative/administrative powers of climate-related

selected sectors/policies. Their closer proximity to citizens, their greater flexibility than

national governments, and the fact that they are responsible for many of the policy areas

involved in climate policies (energy, transport, industry, housing, environment) explain

the importance of regional governments in the implementation of climate policy

(Cittadino et al. 2022). For example, the regional governments of California and Quebec

have been highly active during the last decades in evidencing their potential for

coordinated efforts at all levels of governance by developing their climate policies while,

many times, acting at the forefront of national policy targets (Chaloux, 2016; Leffel,

2018; Chaloux et al. 2022).

According to Galarraga et al. (2011), there are important reasons to consider regional

governments as vital actors for the effective implementation of global climate targets. To

start with, regional bodies are often the main implementing level for global agreements

on climate change policies considering their range of responsibilities particularly in

decentralized states where several policy domains such as environmental policy,

transport, and industrial policies, fall under the scope of regional action. In such federal

contexts, many national governments may not guarantee that their commitments are

successfully achieved without considering their regional units. Additionally, regional

governments are close enough to people to better tailor actions to their needs. Regions

should be able to identify priorities and difficulties and thus implement policies more

clearly, while still being strategic enough to establish links between all the different policy

areas that need to be coordinated for climate change policy. Finally, it is also worth noting

that regions are better placed to guarantee the effective implementation of policies. As

the impacts of climate change will vary from place to place, the combination of

institutions and legal and political tools available to public decision‐makers are unique

from region to region, meaning that each region is aware of its proper strategy.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

349

Secondly, climate leadership performed by regions in federal or decentralized

governments is framed beyond climate action per se. In other words, climate leadership

reflects broader debates of structural and system-wide fragmentation taking place at the

global level through contention, competition, and collaboration governance dynamics

(Risse, 1995; Nye, 2019; Kim, 2020). Understanding their relevance in the policy process

of achieving global targets, but also recognizing the space given to non-party

stakeholders in the Paris Agreement (Chaloux, 2022), a set of regional federal

governments have made their case as actors of local implementation but also as actors

of global-reaching influence (Giudicelli, 2022). Interestingly, the polycentric context

brought by Paris opens a two-fold stage for regional federal governments: (1) the

recognition to internally act beyond a mere relay for national efforts, and, therefore,

design and implement their territorial policies aligned with specific contexts and according

to their legislative capacities (Ibidem); (2) but also the recognition of action across

traditional national boundaries by encouraging the external engagement in climate

governance dynamics (Paquin, 2020). As federated regions have relevant competencies,

both at the national and international levels, there is an opportunity to lead through self-

governance. In other words, the performance of self-governance represents (1) the

chance for a federal region to act autonomously in the implementation of its climate

regulation which may surpass (set higher standards/ambitions) or anticipate (fill

regulatory voids) federal climate policies and, (2) the possibility of regional governments

to engage internationally, without the interference of the state government and influence

course of global climate governance.

3.2. Regional Climate Leadership Beyond the State: a Reviewed Typology

The notion of climate leadership as agents of change presented by Liefferink and Wurzel

(2017) is insufficient to describe the above-described context. As dynamics endorsed by

regional actors require a broader framework of analysis, we consider the conception

presented by Andresen and Agrawala (2002) which regards a relation between actors

within a group (leaders and followers) where one or a few individuals may (1) use power

to induce a group to adopt a particular line of policy and, therefore, (2) shape the

collective behavioral patter of the group. In this line of thought, we understand climate

leadership as the capacity of an actor to, unintentionally or intentionally, change climate

behavioral patterns by gathering followers

, thus influencing global climate governance

(Andresen and Agrawala, 2022) through external and/or internal action (Liefferink and

Wurzel 2017). To transpose such conception into the realm of regional climate leadership

beyond the state, this work considers the analytical framework of internal and external

action provided by Liefferink and Wurzel (2017) (see Table 1 above).

To start with, we notice the positioning of climate actors according to their internal and

external ambitions: laggard, pioneer, symbolic leader, and pusher. The two-level matrix

provided by Liefferink and Wurzel (2017) allows the identification of the climate

Followers are actors who emulate the activities of pioneers/pushers (leaders). Followers emerge in response

to a perceived superiority and legitimacy of leaders that result in the adoption of the same or a substantively

similar approach to a particular climate problem (Wurzel et al., 2019).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

350

leadership expression in two ways: (1) it establishes that climate leadership is performed

in a two-dimension structure of external and/or internal climate policies that influence

global climate governance; (2) it identifies that pioneers and pushers are the ultimate

expressions of leadership dynamics, the only policy strategies capable of influencing

climate governance (setting of an example of behavioral patterns that may be followed).

On the other hand, we also note that regional leadership in climate governance expresses

dynamics of self-governance (i.e., autonomy of action) in climate action.

Considering the internal and external performance of self-governance (i.e., autonomy of

action) in climate policy as low and high, allows us to identify actors with the actual

capacity to change behavioral patterns (i.e., followers attraction) thus influencing global

climate governance as set out below in Table 2.

Table 2. Regional climate leadership

Internal ‘face’

External ‘face’

Low internal climate

self-governance

High internal climate

self-governance

Low external climate

self-governance

(a) Laggard

(b) Pioneer

High external climate

self-governance

(d) Pusher

Source: Author’s own based on Lieferink and Wurzel, 2017.

Table 2 distinguishes the following four types of regional climate leadership positions:

(a) Low internal and low external climate self-governance does not reflect climate

leadership. Federal regions do not make use of their legislative capacities to pursue

their own internal climate regulation or external climate engagement to attract

followers. Such actors are classified as laggards and do not influence climate

governance.

(b) High internal and low external self-governance classify a pioneer position. A pioneer

federal region makes internal use of its legislative capacities to pursue its own

internal climate regulation, being even able to anticipate or surpass federal climate

ambitions, yet it shows no direct interest in attracting followers via international

engagement. A pioneer may, nevertheless, express climate leadership considering

that it may attract followers by unintentionally setting an internal exemplary

behavior and, therefore, also influence global climate governance.

leader. Although the federal region may use its legislative capacities through the

external performance of climate diplomacy, the same is not performed internally.

Considering that there is no domestic commitment in terms of setting its own climate

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

351

regulation, symbolic leaders are not perceived as legitimate actors by potential

followers and are, therefore, unable to change behavioral patterns in global climate

governance (influence).

(d) A combination of high internal and high external self-governance turns a federal

region into a pusher. In this case, a federal government uses its legislative

capacities to pursue its own internal climate regulation, by namely being able to

anticipate or surpass federal climate ambitions, but also to actively mobilize

international partners

(followers) externally. A pusher reflects a climate leader that

intentionally influences global climate governance.

Altogether, we perceive that pioneers and pushers are the ultimate expressions of

regional climate leadership dynamics. Both pioneers and pushers make use of their

legislative capacities as federal governments to be influent actors (gather followers) in

climate governance, through external and/or internal action (in the latter, either

intentionally or unintentionally): internally, there is the affirmation of its own climate

regulation, which sometimes may be considered to surpass and/or anticipate national

action; externally, there is an unintentional (pioneers) or intentionally (pushers)

attraction of followers that result in influence over the behavioral patterns of other actors

concerning climate change. In this context, regional climate leadership is the capacity of

regional federal governments to gather followers, thus influencing climate global

governance through the internal and external performance of self-governance.

Overall, regional climate leadership establishes a parallel between the polycentric context

inaugurated by Paris and climate leadership. Such resemblance sets a leverage position

for regional federated governments who might foresee an opportunity to influence

climate governance. The adoption of such strategy consists of the capacity to influence

climate governance (i.e., leadership) in two dimensions: (1) domestically, by adopting

its own climate ambitions (2) internationally, by actively enrolling in climate diplomacy

activities that mobilize other actors to pursue the same climate ambitions. Although such

phenomenon has remained overlooked by the literature, empirical evidence suggests that

it is already taking place whereas some federated states have been acting as autonomous

actors within the global climate regime structured around the Paris Agreement (Chaloux

et al., 2022).

4. Evidence of regional climate leadership: the cases of California and

Québec

Although subnational governments have been active climate players for several decades,

only recently their important role has been recognized with the adoption of a more

polycentric climate regime under Paris. The U.S. state of California and the Canadian

Internationally, regional federal actors use their action capacities by actively enrolling in subnational

diplomacy and transnational networks. By informally collaborating with other sub-national, national, and

non-state entities, they work towards the achievement of innovative climate policy solutions and

acknowledge-sharing to be applied domestically (Leffel, 2018; Chaloux, 2022).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

352

province of Québec are among the leading federated units that have evidenced ambitious

climate efforts in line with the Paris Agreement (Ibidem). Having stood out for their

independent agency in the implementation of global climate standards, their prominent

role at the domestic and international levels suggests that a phenomenon of regional

climate leadership is in the making.

After long years of unrecognized efforts, California and Québec are currently

acknowledged by experts and actors in the field as actual climate leaders considering the

ambitious implementation of climate measures and policies (Chaloux et al., 2015;

Eatmon, 2009; Leffel, 2018; Setzer, 2015). With or without the national support of the

respective national governments, there has been a direct commitment from both cases

to the implementation of policies that support the premises of the Paris Agreement,

namely emission reductions and reporting established in Articles 4.1, 4.2., 4.4., 4.9,

4.19. Regardless of not being signatory parties: both have independently established

their greenhouse gases (GHG) emission reduction targets, deployed a set of policy

mechanisms and tools to tackle climate mitigation and adaption, and even joined several

bilateral and multilateral climate agreements with international partners (Chaloux,

2022). Having proactively demonstrated a willingness to be regarded as full-fledged

actors in the global climate regime inaugurated by Paris, California, and Québec are worth

analyzing cases that suggest the emergence of regional climate leadership.

Despite very limited international competencies

(dependent on Congress approval) but

considerable climate regulation jurisdictional capacities

, California, has gained a

reputation for applying the continent’s most ambitious emission targets but, especially,

for trying to carry America's climate commitments on the eve of Trump's withdrawal

(surpassing). Simultaneously, California is also well-known for actively engaging in

subnational diplomacy and transnational networks. Using its jurisdictional capacities on

climate-related policy, California has internally established its equivalent to the Nationally

Determined Contributions (NDC) concerning the 2030 emissions targets defined by the

Paris Agreement. Overall, the federal region has set an economy-wide GHG emission

reduction target for 2030 at 40% below 1990 levels and, as a member of the Under2

Coalition, it is also committed to the goal of reducing 80%-95% of emissions below 1990

levels by 2050. Similar to the NDC's scheme applied to Paris' signatory parties, California

has equally set, with Assembly Bill 32, the obligation of updating their GHG emission

reduction targets every five years. Internationally, California has also signed informal

agreements (e.g., memorandums of understanding) to perform its external action via

subnational climate diplomacy and transnational networks: along with Québec, California

According to the American Constitution states are expressly forbidden from negotiating formal treaties yet,

it grants limited access to international activity and often only with the consent of Congress reflecting the

legitimate interest of local communities. To avoid a delicate overstep of their legal bounds, state-level

officials celebrate informal arrangements such as cooperation agreements or memorandums of agreement;

international loan agreements; protocols of intent (or memorandums of understanding); exchange of letters

or notes; political declarations and statements. Importantly, although there is no formal ministry of

international affairs or relations in California, there is a Senate Office of International Relations as well as

the Governor’s International Affairs and Trade Development Representative.

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards in comparison to

federal policy. However, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) must approve a waiver before California's

rules may go into effect.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

353

has founded a renowned cap-and-trade system that may deal with 80% of their overall

emissions both have joined; co-created, or signed notorious initiatives namely, the

Western Climate Initiative

(a collaboration set to create a cap and trade system in North

America); Regions4

(initially known as the Climate Group, a network led by non-central

governments focused on Sustainable Development); the Under2 Coalition

(a global

pledge aiming to achieve net-zero emissions in 2050); and the Regions Adapt

(three

multilateral organizations that collaborate, and share best practices and intelligence on

the development of climate policies).

Considering its almost unlimited jurisdiction internationally

but also in climate policy,

Québec, made use of its regulatory capacities to remarkably implemented one of the first

carbon levies in North America but also to actively engage in international activities

involving the achievement of Paris' targets. Similar to California, Québec has also set its

domestic equivalent to the 2030 NDC targets by fixing an economy-wide GHG emission

reduction target of 37,5% under the 1990 level by 2030 and the aim of reaching net-

zero emissions by 2050. Just like California, in 2020, Québec approved Bill 44

which

requires the update of a climate action plan and respective targets every five years.

Interestingly, Québec has equally mobilized its external action capacities to join the same

climate-networked initiatives as California, including the cap-and-trade system of which

Québec is a co-founder.

As past efforts became acknowledged, California and Québec multiplied the number of

mechanisms, policies, and action plans to position themselves as active players in the

global climate regime since the Paris Agreement was signed. Having done so as an

individual stand and as an expression of its self-governance capacities, the case of

Québec and California confirm that the landscape of global climate governance is growing

by filling federal leadership voids, aiding national governments, and adding essential and

needed capacity from the bottom-up (Leffel, 2018). In the end, we notice possible

empirical evidence that denotes the possible presence of regional climate leadership in

the cases of California and Québec.

Conclusion

Based on the Paris Agreement's recognition of needed action beyond the nation-state for

effective long-term resolutions in climate change, this paper identifies the opportunity

for a wide set of actors to become influential actors in global climate governance (climate

More information is available at: https://wci-inc.org/, accessed in may 2023.

More information is available at: https://regions4.org/, accessed in may 2023.

More information is available at: https://www.theclimategroup.org/under2-coalition, access in may 2023.

More information is available at: https://climateinitiativesplatform.org/index.php/RegionsAdapt, access in

may 2023.

Although Québec may not formally sign international treaties, the province may sign agreements and

memorandums of understanding. International Relations of Quebec are under the supervision of the Ministry

of International Relations and La Francophonie, being part of the Government of Quebec, which constitutes

a secondary jurisdiction of Canada. Equally relevant, all international treaties concluded by Canada that

involve Quebec’s matters of competence require the approval of Quebec’s National Assembly.

Bill 44 is officially entitled An Act mainly to ensure effective governance of the fight against climate change

and to promote electrification.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

354

leadership). With this acknowledgment, our discussion has sought to do a brief literature

review on climate leadership and polycentric climate governance to acknowledge a gap

and notice how the role of regions, especially regions in federal or decentralized political

systems, has not been yet considered under this framework.

We have started by contextualizing the post-Paris context where a gradual paradigm

transition in the arena of climate politics is taking place. Briefly, a transition from

monocentric to polycentric climate approaches is taking place as part of broader

transformations in the international climate regime led by the UNFCCC. A first but smooth

step of this transition was witnessed in 2015 by the time the Paris Agreement formally

invited non-party stakeholders ( i.e., civil society, the private sector, regions, and cities)

to the global effort of effectively addressing climate change considering that the

commitment endorsed by the parties was insufficient to deal with the challenge.

Regarding this fact, our analysis suggests that up-to-date literature on climate leadership

in polycentric policy contexts has overlooked empirical the role of federal regions in the

post-Paris period. Although there is already some conceptual development on what it

means to be a climate leader and how polycentric governance offers significant potential

for the occurrence of such a phenomenon, a reframing of the model was required to

consider regional federal action according to its legislative capacities. An empirical

application of such a framework to federal regions would lack accuracy in its analysis as

it would leave out considerable details of the phenomenon that are essential for its

explanation: self-governance.

Overall, this paper also identifies a lack of literature consideration for regional actors in

Paris’ polycentric context. Although these are frequently implicit in the several references

to subnational levels of climate action and their importance in achieving international

goals, they are often overlooked. Calling attention to this fact, we notice the emergence

of regional climate leadership by relying on empirical signs in the cases of California and

Québec. As federal units start setting their role as leading authorities of climate policy

implementation but also as actors with global-reaching influence in the climate regime

inaugurated by Paris, the phenomenon occurs at the internal and external dimensions

when the necessary competencies are gathered: (1) admission for the autonomous

implementation of (climate) territorial policies that are independent of the central state;

(2) admission for action across state boundaries and active engagement in climate

governance dynamics. Ultimately, regional climate leadership expresses the capacity of

regional federal governments to influence climate governance through the performance

of self-governance in the internal and external domains.

To conclude, we consider that our paper brings awareness to an important research gap

while establishing grounds for a wide set of future research options both theoretical and

empirical. Although scholars have suggested that the success of global climate

governance depends, at least, on the integration of non-state entities, particularly local

actors (Hsu, Weinfurter, and Xu, 2017), no study has addressed the phenomenon of

regional climate leadership beyond the state. We consider that it is of interest to have a

deeper understanding of regional climate leadership under polycentric conditions. Further

enlightenment could be brought through the empirical application of regional climate

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

355

leadership to specific case studies to figure out why there is a search for influence in

climate governance.

References

Aligica, P., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond.

Governance 25 (2), 237-262.

Andresen, S., & Agrawala, S. (2022). Leaders, pushers, and laggards in the making of

the climate regime. Global Environmental Change 12 (1), 41-51.

Barrett, S. (2005). The Theory of International Environmental Agreements. In K.G. Mäler

and J.R. Vincent (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier, 1457-1516.

Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L.B., Betsill, M.M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M.,

Newell, P., Paterson, M., Roger, C., & VanDeveer, S.D. (2014). Transnational Climate

Change Governance. Cambridge University Press.

Chaloux, A. (2016). Vingt-cinq ans de paradiplomatie climatique québécoise: quel bilan

pour l’action internationale du Québec? Quebec Journal of International Law, 81-98.

Chaloux, A., Séguin, H., & Simard, P. (2022). “All in” climate regime: federated states

as autonomous participants to the Paris Agreement the cases of Québec and California.

Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 28 (3), 265-284.

Cittadino, F., Parks, L., Bußjäger, P., & Rosignoli, F. (2022). Climate Change Integration

in the Multilevel Governance of Italy and Austria. Brill Nijhoff.

Dorsch, M.J., & Flachsland C. (2017). A polycentric approach to global climate

governance. Global Environmental Politics 17 (2), 45-64.

Eatmon, T. (2009). Paradiplomacy and Climate Change: American States as Actors in

Global Climate Governance. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1 (2), 153-165.

Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate

Politics. International Affairs 92 (5), 1107-1125.

Falkner, R., Hannes, S., & Vogler, J. (2010). International Climate Policy after

Copenhagen: Towards a ‘Building Blocks’ Approach.” Global Policy 1 (3), 252-262.

Galarraga, I., Gonzalez-Eguino, M., & Markandya, A. (2011). The Role of Regional

Governments in Climate Change Policy. Environmental Policy and Governance 21 (3),

164-182.

Giudicelli, D. (2022). Exploring the contribution of paradiplomacy to climate resilient

development: the cases of Oslo and Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Norwegian University of Life

Sciences. Available at: https://nmbu.brage.unit.no/nmbu-xmlui/handle/11250/3023687

Hale, T. & Held, D. (2011). Editors’ Introduction: Mapping Changes in Transnational

Governance. In T. Hale & D. Held (eds.), Handbook of transnational governance. Polity,

1-36.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

356

Hale, T., 2016. All Hands on Deck: The Paris Agreement and Nonstate Climate Action.

Global Environmental Politics 16 (3): 12-22.

Hare, B., Stockwell, C., Flachsland, C., & Oberthür, S. (2010). The Architecture of the

Global Climate Regime: A Top Down Perspective. Climate Policy 10 (6), 600-614.

Hoffmann, M. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a

Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford University Press.

Hoffmann, M., 2013. Global Climate Change. In R. Falkner (ed.), The Handbook of Global

Environmental Climate and Environmental Policy. John Wiley & Sons, 3-18.

Hooghe, L., Marks G., & Schakel A.H. (2010). The Rise of Regional Authority: A

Comparative Study of 42 Democracies. Routledge.

Hsu, A., Weinfurter, A. J., Xu, K. (2017). Aligning subnational climate actions for the new

post-Paris climate regime. Climatic Change 142 (3), 419-432.

Jacobs, G. (2019). Beyond the Nation-State: Failed Strategies and Future Possibilities for

Global Governance and Human Wellbeing. Cadmus 4 (1), 90-100.

Jordan, A.J., Huitema, D., Hilden, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T.J., Schoenefeld, J.J.,

Jorgensen, K., Jogesh, A., & Mishra, A. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate

governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change 5 (11), 977-982.

Jordan, A.J., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H., & Forster, J., 2018. Governing Climate Change:

Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge University Press.

Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2019) Power and Interdependence Revisited. International

Organization 41 (4), 725-753.

Kim, R. (2020). Is Global Governance Fragmented, Polycentric, or Complex? The State

of the Art of the Network Approach. International Studies Review 22 (4), 903-931.

Krasner, S.D., 1982. International Regimes. New York: Cornell University Press.

Kuznetsov, A.S. (2015). Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy: Subnational governments

in international Affairs. Routledge.

Leffel, B. (2018). Subnational Diplomacy, Climate Governance & Californian Global

Leadership. USC Centre on Public Diplomacy.

Liefferink, D., & Wurzel, K. W. R. (2017). Environmental leaders and pioneers: agents of

change? Journal of European Public Policy 24 (7), 951-968.

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested Externalities and Polycentric Institutions: Must We Wait for

Global Solutions to Climate Change Before Taking Actions at Other Scales? Economic

Theory, 49 (2), 353-369.

Ostrom, E., (2010a). “Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global

environmental change.” Global Environmental Change 20 (4), 550-557.

Ostrom, E., (2010b.) Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global

Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change, 20 (4) 550-557.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 2 (November 2023-April 2024), pp. 341-357

Seen but overlooked? The emergence of regional leadership

in polycentric climate governance after Paris

Ana Raquel Almeida Dias; Sandrina Antunes

357

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C.M. & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in

metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review 55 (4), 831-

842.

Paquin, S. (2020). Paradiplomacy. In Balzacq, T., Charillon, F. & Ramel, F. (eds) The

Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy, Global Diplomacy:

An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing, 49-61.

Pattberg, P. and Widerberg, O. (2017). The climate change regime. In Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford Research Encyclopedias (ed.), The Oxford

University Press.

Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: non-state actors,

domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge University Press.

Setzer, J. (2015). Testing the Boundaries of Subnational Diplomacy: The International

Climate Action of Local and Regional Governments. Transnational Environmental Law, 4

(2), 319-337.

Skelcher, C. (2005). Jurisdictional integrity, polycentricity, and the design of democratic

governance. Governance 18 (1), 89-110.

Stripple, J., & Stephan, H. (2013). Global Governance. In R. Falkner (ed.), The Handbook

of Global Environmental Climate and Environmental Policy. John Wiley & Sons, 146-162.

Wurzel, K. W. R., Liefferink, D., & Torney, D. (2019). Pioneers, leaders and followers in

multilevel and polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics 28 (1), 1-21.

Wurzel, R. K. W., Andersen, M. S., & Tobin, P. (2021). Climate Governance across the

Globe: Pioneers, Leaders and Followers. Routledge.