Climate policy has been under negotiation at international level for more than two decades. During this period, efforts and studies on implementation and governance of climate policy have focused on industrialised countries, paying little focus to emerging economies. In the last decade, domestic laws have started to be enacted worldwide stemming from this international debate. Climate action has also emerged in cities as means to access co-benefits associated to climate action among local populations. In this context, efforts require ambitious long-term policies and commitments; however domestic public agendas are prone to modifications by changes in public administration after every election, thus creating the risk of ineffective implementation. This project studies the socioeconomical and political dynamics affecting the design and paths followed by local climate policy. It takes an in-depth look into climate governance and policy implementation in Mexico as an example of an emerging and democratic major economy actively involved in climate policy. The ultimate goal is to look at the changes in local public administrations following democratic elections to discuss the implications for achieving long-term mitigation targets.
General Conclusions. Diffusion of climate policy from the national to the local level in Mexico has been slow. The topic has gained importance in the environmental agenda at the federal and state levels, but not by local administrations yet. Thus, adoption of local climate policy is constrained by varying factors ranging from scarce skilled personnel and budget, to the lack of information and definition of comprehensive plans, and low public awareness. However, local advancements in climate action are heterogenous, highlighting cases of municipalities where local political leaders are clearly interested in the issue and where other factors have entered into play. Given the fast turnover of local governments (3 years) and slow process associated to climate action, this limits importantly prospects for implementation. Implementation processes seem slower when they are only a reaction to policy agendas “external” to those of the local decisions makers (e.g. new legislation); when the local executive agenda includes proactively climate action (e.g. in development plans), institutionalisation and implementation is more likely to occur. In this path-depending process, increasing the number of climate initiatives in practice, along with public awareness, also increases the chances for continued climate action after governmental changes.
