Role of local governments in EU member states' climate policy and legislation

Combating climate change is a global challenge, yet numerous local initiatives and the Paris Agreement, EU Green Deal, and European Climate Law all emphasize the importance of action across all levels of government, including local authorities. The European Climate Law requires member states to establish multilevel climate and energy dialogues that include local authorities and review progress over time. A preliminary scan of EU member states’ national climate plans (NECPs and other national plans) shows most recognize a role for local governments. The paper investigates how national climate policy and national climate laws in selected EU member states position local governments, using multi-level governance (MLG) as the theoretical lens. MLG concerns the dispersion of authority across supranational, national, regional and local tiers, and helps explain the delegation of climate tasks and responsibilities to local authorities. Central research question: What opportunities and challenges do local governments have in achieving climate objectives, both within EU member states' national climate policy and national climate law, and how does this relate to the literature on multi-level governance? The study focuses on four countries (Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain) chosen for their differing state structures and approaches to allocating climate roles to local governments, and analyzes five categories derived from the MLG literature: recognition, tasks/responsibilities, cooperation, legal restrictions, and financial dependence.

MLG literature highlights both opportunities and challenges for local governments (LGs) in climate governance. Opportunities: Distributing governance across multiple levels can be more effective, equitable and sustainable than central state monopolies. Certain climate tasks (e.g., public awareness, education, community mobilization) are often better performed locally as LGs are closest to citizens. Dynamic multi-level reinforcement within the EU has supported climate leadership, and local action can be particularly impactful where national support is weak. Collaboration across levels and sectors (public–private, inter-municipal, micro-local) can enhance outcomes, provided roles are clearly coordinated. LGs are often viewed as potential key drivers due to ambitious local plans and their capacity to coordinate local responses on energy and environmental issues. Challenges: LGs face legal constraints; their competences are typically bounded territorially and set by higher-level legislation, and they generally cannot enact their own climate laws. Many LGs have limited responsibilities in key climate sectors, partly due to legal arrangements and practical capacity constraints. LGs are frequently financially dependent on central governments and external institutions; limited own-source revenues can hinder climate action, and strengthening local fiscal bases is often urged. Overall, MLG is potentially more effective than a single-level approach, but LGs’ legal and financial dependencies shape what they can deliver.

The study proceeded in two parts. First, a preliminary scan of EU member states’ national climate plans was conducted manually (without advanced software) by keyword searches (e.g., “local,” “local authorities,” “municipalities”) to identify whether and how LG tasks and responsibilities were recognized and specified; findings were recorded in an Excel file. Second, an in-depth comparative analysis was conducted for four selected member states (Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain), chosen for variation in state structure, availability of general national climate plans (beyond NECPs), and the presence of clear national climate laws with differing treatments of LG roles. The analysis focused on general national climate plans to balance coverage across major themes (energy, buildings, mobility, etc.) and on national climate laws (not environmental laws). Guided by categories derived from MLG literature, documents were coded and compared along: (1) recognition of LG roles; (2) assigned tasks and responsibilities; (3) cooperation (inter-local and with other parties); (4) legal restrictions; (5) financial dependence. Supplementary tables provide additional country-specific examples.

EU-wide preliminary scan: In 25 of 27 EU member states, national climate plans assign some role to local governments (ranging from general recognition to explicit tasks/responsibilities). In 22 of 27, LG tasks/responsibilities are specified. Germany and Malta explicitly state LGs have no or limited roles; Malta frames LG roles as primarily administrative with marginal involvement in policy design. Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia mention LG involvement without specifying it. Four-country comparison: Recognition: All four national climate plans and climate laws acknowledge LG involvement. For example, the Dutch Climate Act mandates consultation with provinces, water boards, and municipalities on implementation and potential new measures (art. 8), and Ireland involves LGs in the National Dialogue on Climate Action. Tasks and responsibilities: Germany is reticent; its climate plan states climate policy is not integral to local public services, and the Federal Climate Change Act assigns no explicit LG tasks; municipalities cannot adopt their own climate legislation (Länder can, consistent with federal law). Ireland’s climate plan assigns LGs important roles across issues and contemplates reviewing legislation to empower LG introduction of low/zero-emission zones. The Dutch Climate Agreement details numerous LG roles across themes (e.g., municipalities schedule gas phase-out steps; provinces act as competent authorities for industrial CO2 measures). Spain assigns numerous LG responsibilities across 18 climate themes; while the climate plan underemphasizes LG responsibility in energy, the NECP attributes energy roles to LGs. Spain’s Climate Change and Energy Transition Law (Ley 7/2021) specifies detailed LG duties in sustainable mobility: municipalities >50,000 inhabitants must adopt sustainable urban mobility plans including measures for active transport, electrification and public transport enhancement, shared electric mobility and charging infrastructure, and low-emission zones (art. 14(1),(3)). Cooperation: Germany’s plan does not emphasize LG cooperation; interactions with national government are mainly within funding relationships. Ireland highlights extensive local collaborations, including Local Authority Climate Action Training to build capacity. The Netherlands promotes regional multi-actor collaboration via 30 Regional Energy Strategies (RES), engaging LGs, network operators, firms, civil society and citizens to operationalize renewable energy and built-environment measures. Spain emphasizes interdepartmental and intersectoral collaboration, with national networks such as FEMP, the Spanish Network of Cities for Climate, and the Spanish Local Sustainability Network. Climate laws generally provide less detail on cooperation; Spain embeds cooperation principles (art. 2(n)) and requires collaboration on mobility (art. 14), and Ireland mandates inter-local consultation when drafting local authority climate action plans. Legal restrictions and binding force: Across all four, national legislatures (and in Germany/Spain also Länder/Autonomous Communities) hold legislative authority; LGs cannot enact climate laws. Germany: municipalities are not directly bound by the national climate plan and must act within federal/Länder frameworks; national oversight applies to municipal climate programs (e.g., public consultation under art. 9(3) KSG). Ireland: climate law mandates each local authority to prepare, approve, and publish a climate action plan, with procedural rules and substantial local discretion; the Minister may issue binding guidelines (section 16(8)). Netherlands: Climate Act imposes obligations primarily on the national government; LG roles stem from policy (Climate Agreement) and sectoral laws, not the Climate Act itself. Spain: climate law directly binds LGs by specifying duties (notably in mobility), reflecting the decentralized structure. Financial dependence: Germany and Ireland emphasize national funding for local climate action. In Germany, the National Climate Initiative (NKI) supports thousands of LG projects, though many grants require local co-financing that some LGs cannot provide; targets (e.g., 95% GHG reduction by 2050 for funded LGs) can be stricter than national ranges (80–95%), creating a paradox given LGs’ limited formal powers. Ireland’s plan lists multiple nationally funded local initiatives. Dutch and Spanish plans place less explicit emphasis on central transfers, though national funding supports LG responsibilities in various themes. Overall, LGs’ limited own-source revenues reinforce fiscal dependence on higher tiers, consistent with MLG literature.

Findings align with MLG scholarship that recognizes LGs as important actors within multi-level climate governance while operating under higher-tier legal and fiscal constraints. Recognition of LG roles in policy and law across all four countries is a necessary starting point but not sufficient to establish a key role. Substantive delegation varies considerably: Ireland, the Netherlands, and especially Spain (in law) assign numerous and sometimes detailed responsibilities, challenging the claim that LGs generally have few responsibilities in key sectors. Germany’s approach, tied to its federal structure and reliance on Länder competences, aligns with literature observing limited local mandates in some contexts. Cooperation featured prominently in Irish, Dutch, and Spanish policy via intergovernmental and public–private partnerships, consistent with MLG expectations that collaboration can enhance outcomes if well coordinated; Germany’s emphasis was more on funding relationships than cooperative delivery. Legal frameworks both constrain and enable: LGs cannot legislate but can be empowered procedurally (Ireland) or via detailed statutory assignments (Spain). Financial dependency on higher tiers is pervasive and can hinder local ambition without adequate transfers or strengthened local fiscal bases. Overall, the comparative evidence supports the MLG proposition that polycentric, multi-tiered arrangements can be effective, provided legal authority, clear task allocation, and stable financing are ensured.

The paper contributes an MLG-informed, category-based comparison of how four EU member states’ national climate plans and laws structure local governments’ roles. It shows universal recognition of LG involvement, substantial but uneven delegation of tasks and responsibilities (detailed in Spain’s law; extensive in Irish and Dutch policy; limited in Germany), varied emphasis on cooperation, clear legal constraints on LG law-making, and persistent fiscal dependence on higher tiers. These insights clarify where opportunities (task assignment, cooperative frameworks, enabling legislation) and challenges (legal limits, funding gaps, dependency) lie for LGs in achieving climate objectives. Future research could expand comparisons to additional member states, examine the effectiveness of different legal designs (e.g., Spain’s detailed statutory duties vs. Ireland’s procedural empowerment), conduct in-depth analyses of LG fiscal capacity and funding mechanisms, and shift focus from national frameworks to local climate policies and by-laws to assess on-the-ground implementation and outcomes.

The study focuses on national climate plans and national climate laws, not broader environmental legislation or local climate plans, limiting scope. The preliminary EU-wide review relied on manual keyword searches of English-accessible documents, which may miss nuances or non-English materials. The literature synthesis and document analysis, while systematic, are not exhaustive. The paper does not evaluate implementation effectiveness or causal impacts of specific legal or policy designs. Country selection (Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain) enables contrast but limits generalizability to all EU member states.