Local and global governments are interconnected, but rarely considered equals. Now a growing number of countries are recognising that town, city and county-level policymakers need a seat at the most influential climate negotiating tables.
If we’ve learnt anything from the previous 29 editions of the UN Climate Summit, it’s that national leaders and international corporates might not be best placed to drive real change on the ground. A multilateral agreement doesn’t guarantee progress, lip service does not always beget action.
2025’s gathering of environmental, ecological, political, social, activist, and corporate delegates has made headlines as usual. A number of finance deals offer hope of increasing the flow of capital into mitigation and recovery programmes, especially within nature and biodiversity – core themes at this year’s conference. But plenty of coverage has also focused on more controversial elements of the event. Again, as usual.
Like Gavin Newsom, for example. The Governor of California is positioning himself as an antithesis to US President Donald Trump’s flagrant disregard for our planet, human and animal life. His high profile appearance at COP30 in Belem, Brazil this week clarifies his view that whatever Washington wants us to think about net zero and ecological recovery, global warming, emissions and climate justice, the guy in charge of a state which is already feeling the brunt of climate change is not going quietly into that subtropical night.
California may be larger in terms of area and GDP than a number of European countries – it’s the largest subnational economy on the planet – but it’s still a regional power in domestic US terms. So the fact the country’s third largest state is now looking to broker its own international deals and position itself as a ‘climate leader’ at global summits points to collapsing trust between federal and local powers. And the latter rapidly running out of patience with the former.
But Newsom’s move also signifies a more universal truth which some countries get, but most don’t. Regional and local authorities are crucial to environmental progress. To stand a chance of slowing, let alone reversing climate change, more power must be ceded to city and town halls, and larger mayoral areas, where there is greater knowledge of localised challenges and opportunities, strengths and weaknesses. These authorities are best placed to determine how local policy can and should be implemented in ways that actually contribute to national efforts.
But don’t take our word for it. Instead, listen to the thousands of representatives from the Indigenous communities of Brazil and beyond that overshadowed much of the negotiation talking points at COP30 last week. Or look at the Multilevel Governance Solutions Acceleration Plan. More so, the Coalition of High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP), which Brazil and Germany will be the first countries to co-host.
Billed as the first stage in implementing the Acceleration Plan beyond COP’s meeting rooms, 77 countries, in addition to the EU’s 27 member states, have now committed to a future in which local and regional authorities are brought closer to nation-level governments. In many places, more power will need to be handed down for this to work, but there are signs that’s happening.
The most recent UNFCCC synthesis report on Nationally Determined Contributions – climate action plans countries are now obliged to produce – shows 80% referenced ‘subnational actors’. That’s almost 20% more than the previous round of submissions. Meanwhile, the new Beat the Heat initiative, another COP30 concept, launched with 185 cities and 83 organisational partners worldwide, following in the footsteps of other global-local networks like the pan-European Clean Cities Campaign.
Regional leaders are being taken more seriously when it comes to climate and climate-adjacent policy. But, as Chair of the ADEPT Environment Board and Director for Environment and Planning at Surrey County Council, Carolyn McKenzie, explained in her recent long read for Environment Journal, the potential for UK councils to become international ‘climate leaders’ is often hamstrung by regulations, legislation, procedures and processes. Or, more specifically, a lack of room to manoeuvre. A new Westminster Bill could right some of those wrongs, but urgent attention is needed to ensure wording does not miss the mark.
Regardless, numbers rarely lie. According to data published last month by the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, gleaned from the Public Attitudes Tracker, Britons are now so overwhelmed by conflicting information on climate change, not forgetting mis- and disinformation, trust in national government has dropped to just 50% of survey respondents. In comparison, local authorities consistently rank as the most trusted tier of government, and, according to council network UK100, have direct influence over 82% of total British emissions.
In its latest call to action, the organisation is demanding a number of things from Downing Street. These include ensuring public participation strategies incorporate dedicated support for local government-community engagement, recognition that local powers are a vital bridge between Westminster and the public, and backing for the development of localised communication and engagement teams to counter false information where it often starts – on the doorstep.
By failing to take this seriously, central government would be pursuing ineffective routes to winning support for overarching national policy – like clean energy transition within the next five years. More so, it would paint a damning picture of an administration out of touch with a rapidly growing movement that puts local and global on a level playing field. Which seems to make perfect sense, from where we’re standing.
Image: Paul Marlow / Unsplash
More Case Studies, Features & Industry Insight:
From burden to benefit: embedding biodiversity net gain into stakeholder engagement
Cutting super pollutants is COP30’s emergency climate change brake
Carbon dominates climate debate, water scarcity may be a greater threat