A reflection from Wolfgang Teubner, ICLEI Regional Director for Europe, as we begin a new year.
Looking back on two years of the COVID-19 pandemic looming large in Europe, a few things become clear to me. Namely, our democracies are fragile, facing climate change may be even more of an “uphill battle” than anticipated, and local governments hold the key to overcoming both of these challenges. Let me explain.
A year ago, we watched the attack on the US Capitol by supporters of the former president who had lost the election. This shocking scene illustrated how much the idea of the liberal democracy is under pressure, including from within our societies. Europeans might believe this development results from unique aspects of the US political system and society. However, ongoing discussions in the EU regarding fundamental principles of democracy and division of powers show that such developments are not exclusive to the US, and can easily happen in Europe unless we are alert and actively defend liberal democracy.
Many factors contribute to this democratic instability. Real and perceived social divides within our societies are certainly important factors; the role of social media, the overflow of information that overburdens people, the mix of facts and opinions combined with conspiracy theories and organised campaigning all makes for a dangerous mix. In this environment, discussions about political decisions become heated, ideological and polarised, and often lead to quite radical protests. For their part, political entities may make use of the same strategies, especially upon seeing that populistic simplifications are often part of the recipe for winning elections.
Reactions to COVID-19 regulations and restrictions that infringe on usual lifestyle and habits exemplify the unstable informational environment we find ourselves in. In light of the mechanisms explored above, protests against pandemic responses become louder, more radical and violent.
Although, the pandemic has had severe consequences, and many people have lost – and will still lose – their lives, political decision makers are often hesitant to make clear and strong decisions regarding necessary restrictions or vaccination regulations. Consequent delays aggravate the situation, leading to ever-stronger pandemic waves and to continued restrictions that could have been avoided by acting more decisively earlier.
Politicians may hesitate to apply strong restrictions and regulations in the hopes of avoiding negative reactions and protests. However, not taking decisive action ignores the advice of scientists, who are pushing for stronger measures, and endangers people – the majority of whom would be ready to accept restrictions.
Failing to heed scientific advice and thus endangering people is not new: climate activists have seen this for decades.
Science clearly shows that, if global temperatures are allowed to rise beyond the 1.5°–2°C window, the impacts of climate change could be much worse than those of the pandemic. Today, almost 30 years after the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), far too little action to mitigate and adapt to ongoing change has taken place, and the time-window for action is becoming continually smaller. The recent UNFCCC conference in Glasgow (COP 26) again claimed that the time for talks is over, and that the situation demands immediate and strong action. The longer we wait the stronger the measures will have to be, and the worse impacts we will have to face.
Most of the measures needed to make our societies climate neutral by 2050 will have considerable impacts on our daily lives, and ultimately require a change in lifestyles and resource consumption. However, due to the long-term nature of climate processes, measures will not have an immediate positive impact on climate change. This paradox – namely that required action will have immediate impacts that may be perceived as restrictions, while the positive consequences on climate change mitigation will only be visible after a long delay – poses a major challenge for political leaders. Putting in place strong climate protection policies will require a lot of courage, a good combination of measures that also consider social aspects, and very good communication to win the support of the majority and to avoid further segregation and polarisation in our societies.
This is where subnational and local governments come in.
Local governments are responsible for land-use planning, building permits and housing, urban greenspace, transport and mobility, water and energy supply, waste management and other basic services. Local decisions tend to have an immediate and tangible impact. Party politics often play a minor role, and discussions and even conflicts are more related to precise measures and impacts. Most local processes include mandatory stakeholder participation, and many local governments are going far beyond those, with co-creation and co-implementation becoming increasingly common practices.
Decisions that would risk polarisation if made at the national level can be tested locally, providing people with a real life experiences. This can include the temporary closing of roads, pop-up bike-lanes, turning parking space into green space, and much more. Through these approaches, cities and local governments can often do (and are doing!) bold and innovative things, while supporting societal cohesion in transformative processes.
International, EU and national levels seem to recognise local governments’ important role, encouraging them to join voluntary commitments. The European Union supports cities to implement Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPS) through the Covenant of Mayors, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), and more. Cities have shown remarkable motivation to prepare impactful strategies and action plans, and to work with all governance levels towards climate goals.
However, there remains a perception among some at higher governing levels that local governments purely implement the rules and regulations that are decided at the upper levels. We continue to see inadequate consultation of local leaders at the national and EU levels, and little room for local influence on regulatory processes and on fiscal and financial frameworks.
In light of the rapid and disruptive transformation needed in order to keep climate change within the agreed upon 1.5° to 2°C temperature rise, and the fragility of democracy that has become increasingly visible during the pandemic, the role of local governments in a multi-level governance system needs to become much stronger. This would better reflect the needs of people, and lead to more effective regulations and fiscal frameworks. Multi-level cooperation brings national, European and global challenges into local discussions, thereby strengthening liberal democracies by bringing people closer to political processes and discussions.
All we need to begin this shift is the will and respect to develop new forms of serious dialogue and consultation, and a commitment to manage transformative change jointly, efficiently and without neglecting societal cohesion. This requires openness to share power, a spirit of collaboration across parties and cultures, and political courage on all levels. The time to be bold is now, so let’s give it a try.