Portugal's Multilevel Climate Governance and Local Action

From Climate Ambition to Local Delivery in Portugal

Multilevel Climate Governance and Implementation Capacity

Arthur Franco Pereira

Joint project with ADENE – Portuguese Energy Agency | MSc Thesis | Nova SBE | Advisors: Ana Fontoura Gouveia, Maria João Proença

Structure of the presentation

Context and motivation: the ADENE problem

Research question and project goal

Methodology and analytical steps

Climate governance as a system: analytical frameworks

Diagnosing Portugal’s governance structure

Explaining outcomes through three drivers

Context & Motivation (ADENE Project)

Climate policy challenge has shifted from ambition to delivery.

Local and regional authorities implement most mitigation and adaptation measures.

Implementation outcomes vary strongly across territories.

Legal obligations alone do not guarantee effective action.

Project developed in collaboration with ADENE (Portuguese Energy Agency)

ADENE’s Challenge

National climate ambition is clear

Local delivery remains uneven and difficult

Need to understand how Portugal’s governance system enables or constrains local climate action

Core Problem

How to move from planning obligations to effective territorial delivery

Research Questions

How is climate governance structured across levels in Portugal?

How do national, regional, intermunicipal and municipal actors interact?

What type of multilevel governance system characterises Portugal?

Which factors explain gaps between planning and implementation?

Main Research Question

To what extent does Portugal’s multilevel climate governance system enable effective local climate action delivery?

Project Goal

Diagnose Portugal’s governance architecture

Identify strengths and weaknesses in implementation capacity

Provide an analytical basis for future recommendations to ADENE

(One core question focused on system interconnectedness)

Methodology & Analytical Steps

1. Actors: who is involved at each level<br>2. Decision-making: where authority is and competencies lie<br>3. Interactions: coordination and cooperation mechanisms<br>4. Dependencies: financial, technical and political reliance<br>5. Accountability: monitoring, reporting and enforcement

Used to systematically diagnose governance structure and functioning (Heinen et al.)

Development of an analytical framework grounded in the literature

Systematic diagnosis of Portugal’s climate governance system

Comparative discussion informed by selected European cases

Iterative validation through discussions with ADENE

Identification of structural strengths and bottlenecks

Why this step matters

Information was fragmented

No existing system-level diagnosis of Portugal’s climate governance

Climate Governance as a System (I)

Framework 2: Types of MLG

<b>Type I:</b> Hierarchical, territorially bounded, general-purpose.<br><br><b>Type II:</b> Task-specific, flexible, network-based.

Framework 3: Drivers of Effectiveness

• Institutional driver<br>• Political driver<br>• Relational driver

(Used to classify the system and explain performance differences)

Framework 1: Five dimensions of multilevel governance

who is involved at each level

where authority and competences lie

coordination and cooperation mechanisms

financial, technical and political reliance

monitoring, reporting and enforcement

Used to systematically assess structure and functioning

Climate Governance as a System (II)

Frameworks 2 and 3: Types & Drivers

Framework 2: Types of Multilevel Governance

Hierarchical, territorially bounded, general-purpose

Task-specific, flexible, network-based

Framework 3: Drivers of Effectiveness

Institutional driver

Political driver

Relational driver

Used to classify the system and explain implementation outcomes

Diagnosing Portugal’s Governance Structure (I)

• Central government<br><span style='font-size:0.8em; color:#666'>Targets, strategy, supervision</span><br><br>• Regional coordination bodies<br><span style='font-size:0.8em; color:#666'>Regional planning and coordination</span><br><br>• Intermunicipal communities<br><span style='font-size:0.8em; color:#666'>Territorial articulation and shared action</span><br><br>• Municipalities<br><span style='font-size:0.8em; color:#666'>Local climate action plans and implementation</span><br><br>• Supporting agencies & non-state actors

Diagnosing Portugal’s Governance Structure (II)

<b>Actors:</b> Multiple levels involved, uneven capacity

<b>Decision-making:</b> Strategic authority remains centralised

<b>Interactions:</b> Coordination required but weakly operationalised

<b>Dependencies:</b> Strong vertical financial and technical dependence

<b>Accountability:</b> Reporting obligations exist, enforcement unclear

Diagnosing Portugal’s Governance Structure (III)

<h3 style='color:#00796b'>Dominant Type I Features</h3><ul><li>Centralised goal-setting</li><li>Territorial jurisdiction logic</li></ul>

<h3 style='color:#00796b'>Required Type II Features</h3><ul><li>Cross-level coordination</li><li>Task-specific collaboration</li></ul>

<div style='background:#efebe9; padding:20px; border-left:5px solid #8d6e63;'><b>Structural Mismatch:</b> Hierarchical design vs network-dependent implementation</div>

From Structure to Explanation

Why structure alone is not enough?

Formal responsibilities do not ensure effective coordination. Capacity asymmetries shape real implementation outcomes. The same legal framework produces uneven territorial performance.

Drivers of effectiveness are needed to explain outcomes.

Explaining Outcomes through the Three Drivers

From structure to performance

Institutional Driver

Responsibilities devolved faster than support instruments

Limited operational guidance

Decentralisation without full enablement

Political Driver

Agenda-setting power concentrated at the centre

Limited influence of subnational levels

Weak feedback loops from implementation

Relational Driver

Absence of permanent multilevel coordination arenas

Coordination depends on ad hoc initiatives

Bridging actors exist, but mostly project-based

Fragile networks limit learning and consistency