Policy Implementation: Challenges and Opportunities   

 Authors:  Zainab Fatima, Edwiga Joiel Nelson, Dhwanii Pandit, Adithyan P, Asmeet Kaur

The implementation of effective climate change policies is a multifaceted challenge that intersects with political, economic, and social dynamics. Political and economic barriers often arise from the tension between short-term interests and long-term environmental goals. A clear example of this is the United States (U.S.) Federal Reserve’s recent decision to withdraw from the Network for Greening the Financial System, highlights how political shifts can disrupt climate initiatives (Reuters, 2025). Furthermore, the politicization of climate policy, particularly in U.S. states, illustrates how party governance and institutional structures can hinder climate action (Zhu and Zhang, 2022).

The complexities of implementing climate change policies are further compounded by the intricate relationship between regulatory frameworks and institutional capacity. While global agreements such as the Paris Agreement emphasize the need for national-level action, the reality of policy implementation often falls short due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and fragmented climate finance (United Nations, 2015). Many countries struggle to align their domestic policies with international commitments, creating gaps in execution and accountability. For instance, the slow pace of climate finance deployment in developing nations has hindered their ability to meet targets outlined in climate agreements. Additionally, the lack of coordination between various governmental bodies and sectors often leads to overlapping regulations, making it difficult to create cohesive and effective climate policies. These regulatory challenges highlight the need for comprehensive reforms to streamline governance and ensure that national policies are both ambitious and achievable in addressing the global climate crisis.

Political and Economic barrier: Resolving conflicts between short-term interests and long-term goals.

Climate policy is a critical area of global concern, but it faces significant political and economic barriers. These barriers often stem from conflicting interests, economic costs, and political dynamics. Political barriers to climate policy are often rooted in the interests of powerful stakeholders. For instance, fossil fuel industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which can lead to resistance against climate policies that threaten their profitability. Additionally, political instability and short-term electoral cycles can discourage long-term climate commitments. For example, France’s attempt to increase its carbon tax in 2018 led to widespread protests, highlighting the political challenges of implementing climate policies (Smith, 2019). Economic barriers include the high costs of transitioning to low-carbon technologies and the potential impact on economic growth. Developing countries, in particular, face challenges in balancing climate action with economic development. For instance, India has made significant strides in climate policy, but it must navigate the economic trade-offs between reducing emissions and supporting its growing economy (World Bank, 2022). Additionally, the costs of implementing climate policies can be prohibitive for countries with limited financial resources. Despite these challenges, there are examples of successful climate policies. The World Bank’s report “Within Reach: Navigating the Political Economy of Decarbonization” highlights how countries like India and Colombia have implemented effective climate policies (World Bank, 2023). These examples demonstrate that with the right approach, political and economic barriers can be overcome. Addressing the political and economic barriers to climate policy requires a multifaceted approach, including strong governance, international cooperation, and innovative financing mechanisms (Global Center on Adaptation, 2019). By learning from successful examples and addressing the specific challenges faced by different countries, the global community can make significant progress in combating climate change (World Bank, 2022).

Regulatory Complexities: Streamlining bureaucratic processes for efficient implementation.

Addressing climate change is crucially important as it impacts health, economies, societies and most importantly, the planet’s environment. Despite many efforts to combat climate change, countries still face challenges not only because of their vulnerabilities to climate change but also because of the gaps in the regulatory processes that slow the implementation of necessary policies. Overlapping of the jurisdiction of the central, state and local government often leads to delays as many climate projects need approval for different areas like water use, air quality, land use etc. For example, in Maharashtra’s Nandgaon region, Tata Power’s 100-megawatt solar plant faced opposition from local farmers who cultivated the state-owned land, and the land disputes and protests caused project delays highlighting the need for a streamlined approval process (Ghorpade, 2024). In Germany, environmental assessments are unified which is largely governed by Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental assessment making the process for climate-based projects easier and faster to get approved (Directive 2011/92/EU, n.d.). Addressing climate change requires a strong regulatory framework but timely and effective actions are hindered by bureaucratic inefficiencies. Overlapping procedures can be dealt with decentralised decision making which involves transferring authority from central to local government, communities or other regional bodies. Local communities and authorities understand their environment better making it easier to make decisions that can create a positive effect faster than the central agencies. They can make decisions based on specific culture, geographical factors, socioeconomic factors etc. For example, decentralized forest management through Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand not only fosters quick decision-making but also encourages local communities to conserve forests while meeting their needs (Desk, 2022). It involves local citizens that have greater public participation in decision making ensuring that climate policies align with the needs of people as well as enable swift responses. For example, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment involves inputs from village-level councils for projects like water conservation and afforestation. (Ministry of Rural Development, 2021). The table below shows a comparison of centralized and decentralized decision-making across key areas like time for approval, implementation speed, local adaptation and public participation.

Table 1.1 Centralized vs Decentralized Decision-making (Zábojník, 2002)

This table highlights different aspects that follow a law, rule and decision implementation steps. Here decentralized decision-making is shown as a clear advantage over centralized and it not only empowers local government and communities to implement policies with little dependence on higher authority but also trains bureaucrats, local government bodies and the public on climate policies enhancing better understanding and improved decision making.

Equity in Policy: Addressing socio-economic disparities and ensuring inclusivity.

Equity is one of the four pillars of a policy other than protection, labor and benefit (National Academy of Social Insurance, 2022). Equity in climate policymaking means recognizing and addressing different capacities, responsibilities and vulnerabilities of individuals, communities and nations. It ensures that all people, regardless of their background, have the same access to resources, opportunities and justice. It goes beyond the ‘one size fits all’ approach. It is the prerogative of academia and legislatures around the world to include discussions of justice and equity in policymaking (Posner and Weisbach, 2010). Political scientist Robert O Keohane stated that research on the politics of climate change is urgently needed (Keohane, 2016). In today’s world, issues can be addressed by national contributions that will be self-determined with a prominent example being the Paris Agreement signed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 21, 2015. Paris Agreement recognized that the agreement would reflect “Equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” (Klinsky et al., 2017).  But despite strong references to justice, human rights, and equity in the Paris Agreement’s preamble, the concept of equity is largely absent from its substantive components. The recent USA’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement also raises questions about the developed world’s actions for equity policymaking. Several other challenges persist for equitable policymaking such as economic disparities, lack of representation of vulnerable, and tribals, resistance to accepting the historical emissions responsibility of the developed, and the policy implementation gaps even within the country. To ensure equity in policymaking, countries and governmental organizations must take some inspiration from the following; Prioritizing the inputs from the vulnerable populations and the locals leads to wide social acceptance of actions of the governments. For example, the Indian Government consults the tribal population before any developmental project in the tribal area. Greater responsibility must be taken by the developed world to phase out the greenhouse gases for example, Europe’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) ensures development with less carbon emissions. Norway has invested in retraining oil and gas workers to transition into renewable energy sectors, ensuring economic stability while reducing carbon emissions. Today, the multilateral institutions have become increasingly sensitive to the ill effects of climate change. The world has agreed that the most effective way to deal with the increasing temperatures is to make robust policies and stricter actions against the offenders. Hence, countries worldwide are coming up with strategies to include the negotiations mentioned in agreements like Glasgow Climate Impact 2021, African Union Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan etc. As it is rightly said, “Equity is the soul of public policy; without it, just remains a distant dream”

Stakeholder Engagement: Promoting transparency and collaboration in policymaking.

In light of an increasing demand for innovative approaches to cope with the complexity of climate change, stakeholder engagement is crucial to the successful execution of climate policy because it promotes transparency, collaboration, and public trust. Individuals or groups that have dealt with and adapted to climate variability and extremes in the past or present are considered stakeholders (Conde and Lonsdale, 2004). Some of the key stakeholders involved in or impacted by climate change policy implementation include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, scientists, international organizations, academia, communities and local stakeholders, financial institutions, indigenous communities and vulnerable groups (FundsforNGOs, n.d.).

According to Brown et al. (2001), stakeholder engagement is a procedure that an individual, group, or organization may use to collaborate with, listen to, or inform their current stakeholders. By proactively taking into account the requirements and preferences of anyone with a stake in the organization, stakeholder engagement enables organizations to build relationships, confidence, trust, and support for their primary initiatives (Brown et al., 1998; Adger et al., 1999). Through stakeholder engagement that includes close collaboration with local communities, decision-makers may better understand the communities they serve, which will help them work more efficiently and provide better outcomes (Conde and Lonsdale, 2004). For instance, following Cyclone Phailin, the Odisha government, non-governmental organizations, and local residents collaborated to strengthen early warning systems, build cyclone shelters, and restore mangroves and this stakeholder involvement significantly improved community safety and coastal resilience, ensuring improved preparedness and response to future cyclones (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2014). Also, building on local knowledge and expertise, as well as giving participants “ownership” over choices, increases the likelihood that they will be followed which makes these participatory efforts more likely to be sustainable. Furthermore, stakeholder participation in planning, through priority-setting and voicing preferences, ensures people’s right to influence decisions, promotes equity, and helps resolve conflicts during implementation (Conde and Lonsdale, 2004).
Ultimately, fostering collaboration, inclusivity, and transparency, while organizing policies within existing frameworks, stakeholder engagement aids in overcoming political and economic barriers, regulatory complexities, and numerous other challenges, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of climate policy implementation. Integrating stakeholders in the implementation of climate policies may require more time than conventional methods, but it is frequently more economical in the long term, allowing ideas to be tried, improved, and modified prior to implementation which most likely produces sustainable outcomes. However, despite the progress made, several research gaps remain, such as determining its effectiveness, ensuring inclusiveness, and addressing power dynamics.

Conclusion

Climate policy faces significant political, economic, and regulatory barriers that hinder its effective implementation. Political challenges arise from powerful stakeholders, such as fossil fuel industries, that resist policies threatening their economic interests. Additionally, short-term electoral cycles discourage long-term commitments, as seen in France’s 2018 carbon tax protests. Economic barriers include the high costs of transitioning to low-carbon technologies, particularly for developing nations like India, which must balance emissions reduction with economic growth. Despite these challenges, successful policy examples from India and Colombia demonstrate that with strong governance, international cooperation, and innovative financing, barriers can be overcome.

Regulatory complexities further slow climate action due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and overlapping jurisdictions. Streamlining approval processes and adopting decentralized decision-making can improve efficiency, as seen in Uttarakhand’s Van Panchayats and Germany’s unified environmental assessment system. Similarly, stakeholder engagement enhances policy effectiveness by fostering transparency, inclusivity, and trust. Collaborative efforts, such as Odisha’s post-Cyclone Phailin response, highlight how involving local communities improves resilience and policy acceptance.

Equity in policymaking is crucial to addressing socio-economic disparities and ensuring that climate policies are just and inclusive. The Paris Agreement’s principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” acknowledges the need for equity, yet implementation gaps persist, particularly in addressing historical emissions and economic disparities. Initiatives like Europe’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and Norway’s transition programs for fossil fuel workers exemplify equitable climate action.

Ultimately, overcoming these barriers requires a multifaceted approach that integrates governance reforms, decentralized decision-making, stakeholder participation, and equity-focused policies. As climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, ensuring just and inclusive policies is imperative. As the saying goes, “Equity is the soul of public policy; without it, justice remains a distant dream.”

References

Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Tompkins, E., and Young, K. (1999). Report of the consensus building stakeholder workshop for Buccoo Reef Marine Park, Tobago (ODG Research Working Paper, April 1999). Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia.

Brown, K. W., Adger, W. N., Tompkins, E. L., Bacon, P., and Shim, K. (1998). A framework for incorporating stakeholder participation in marine resource management: A case study in Tobago (CSERGE Working Paper GEC 98-23). Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.

Brown, K., Tompkins, E., and Adger, W. N. (2001). Trade-off analysis for participatory coastal zone decision-making. Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia.

Conde, C., and Lonsdale, K. (2004). Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process. In B. Lim & E. Spanger-Siegfried (Eds.), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures (pp. 179–200). United Nations Development Programme. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7995_APF.pdf

Desk, G. R. (2022, August 17). How Van Panchayat works in Uttarakhand? Ground Report. https://groundreport.in/how-van-panchayat-works-in-uttarakhand/

Directive 2011/92/EU. (n.d.). Environmental impact assessment (EIA). EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0092

FundsforNGOs. (n.d.). Key stakeholders involved or affected by climate change adaptation project. FundsforNGOs. Retrieved January 28, 2025, from https://www.fundsforngos.org/proposals/key-stakeholders-involved-or-affected-by-climate-change-adaptation-project/

Ghorpade, M. (2024, October 4). Farmers lead protest against Tata Power’s 100 MW solar power plant in Nashik’s Nandgaon Taluka. Land Conflict Watch. https://www.landconflictwatch.org/conflicts/farmers-lead-protest-against-tata-power-s-100-mw-solar-power-plant-in-nashik-s-nandgaon-taluka#

Global Center on Adaptation. (2019). 12 great examples of how countries are adapting to climate change. Retrieved from https://gca.org/12-great-examples-of-how-countries-are-adapting-to-climate-change/

Keohane, R. O. (2016, May 24). Climate change politics after Paris as a two-level game: Implications of pledge and review for social science research [Keynote address]. 2016 Berlin Conference on Global Environmental Change, “Transformative Global Climate Governance après Paris,” Berlin, Germany.

Klinsky, S., Roberts, T., Huq, S., Okereke, C., Newell, P., Dauvergne, P., O’Brien, K., Schroeder, H., Tschakert, P., Clapp, J., Keck, M., Biermann, F., Liverman, D., Gupta, J., Rahman, A., Messner, D., Pellow, D., & Bauer, S. (2017). Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change, 44, 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002

Ministry of Rural Development. (2021). Frequently asked questions (FAQs) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA). Ministry of Rural Development.https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2021/nov/doc2021112931.pdf

National Academy of Social Insurance. (2022, June). What is equity policy? National Academy of Social Insurance. https://www.nasi.org/research/economic-security/what-is-equity-policy/

Posner, E. A., & Weisbach, D. (2010). Climate change justice. Princeton University Press.

Reuters. (2025, January 20). Central banks’ green push hits hurdle as Fed drops out. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/central-banks-green-push-hits-hurdle-fed-drops-out-2025-01-20/

Smith, J. (2019). Political challenges in implementing climate policy. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/

United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Phailin Report: Disaster risk management in Odisha (UNDP Report). National Disaster Management Authority. https://ndmindia.mha.gov.in/ndmi/images/pdf/PhailinReport-UNDP-Odisha.pdf

United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

World Bank Group. (2023). Climate policies with real-world results. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2023/09/19/climate-policies-with-real-world-results

World Bank. (2022). Within reach: Navigating the political economy of decarbonization. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/within-reach-navigating-political-economy-of-decarbonization

Zábojník, J. (2002). Centralized and decentralized decision making in organizations. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/323929

Zhu, Y., and Zhang, H. (2022). Politicization of climate policy in U.S. states: Impacts of party governance and institutional arrangements. Environmental Policy Journal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8853238/