If we have to effectively tackle civic and environmental issues as urbanisation grows, we need a very different approach to local governance, which requires the strengthening of capabilities and capacity on the ground

The experience with negotiations on critical global issues does not inspire great confidence, neither in the speed at which these lead to culmination in an acceptable agreement nor in their effectiveness during the implementation phase.  One can look at three examples that clearly show the tardiness with which negotiations at the global level move forward, even as the urgency and importance of taking action under the umbrella of intended agreements becomes larger.

If we look at the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea, which was actively discussed during the period 1973-1982, negotiations were slowed and complicated by various differences among different nations.  The original law of the Seabed Treaty itself took extremely long largely because several nations were concerned about their own individual interests and benefits that they might be able to derive.  As a consequence, the US stayed away from the treaty to start with.  Experience with negotiations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has also had a similar history, which can be seen in the fact that the Doha round sponsored by the WTO has been stuck for a decade, even if one forgets the enormous delay in the original negotiations which brought the WTO into existence. 

The latest comprehensive global agreement relates to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is now almost a quarter century old, and under which an agreement for action came into existence just last month, with the ratification of the Paris Agreement.  Meanwhile, the need and urgency for taking action under the

UNFCCC has only increased disproportionately with time. The risks from the impacts of climate change are already serious in several parts of the world, but action to respond has lagged behind significantly and increasingly. 

Many analysts had predicted that the role of the nation state in human activities would decline during this century. This was predicated on the belief that globalisation and global agreements would guide policies at the national and sub-national levels, and that narrow national interest would merge into a larger reality which targets the much larger good of human society as a whole. 

This expectation needs to be seriously questioned, given the nationalistic fervour that one sees in evidence in several parts of the world today. The system remains fragile to occasional shock, such as the recent refugee crisis which has led to bigoted reactions in many countries, articulated by leaders of the extremist variety. For instance, in the recent US presidential campaign, promises were made by candidates on making America ‘great’, but no candidate, both during the primaries and in the final stages of the campaign, promised a better world and better conditions for the human race as a whole.

The resistance and roadblocks in arriving at global agreements, and more so in their implementation, as seen in the case of the deadlock over the WTO, shows that the spirit of globalisation is still extremely weak and can easily be overturned  by narrow and short term national interest, particularly by some of the more powerful countries. In actual fact, global agreements and what they encompass can obviously not work just as the superstructure in a building cannot stand for long if the foundations are weak. This is a reality which leaders of public opinion and the intellectual class must learn quickly to ensure that efforts are directed at the right level in the hierarchy of policymaking and decisions on matters that affect human society.

Fortunately, we find growing action on the part of local Governments as evidence of greater coordination in urban decision-making, which brings the Mayors of cities together. Early this month, there was a summit of Mayors held in Mexico City under the banner of the organisation, C40, and it was refreshing to see that these leaders of urban governance from across the globe focussed on a number of issues of global importance. I have had the privilege of being involved with the Mayor of Mexico City, Miguel Ángel Mancera, in supporting his vision to moving Mexico City to a green energy future and a metropolitan entity capable of dealing with climate change.

This vision of Mayor Mancera is not a major reflection of his own beliefs and priorities but also a realisation of the fact that prominent cities would need to be part of the solution to major global problems. Not doing so would have harmful reputational benefit; and on the other hand, success in devising and implementing solutions will have multiple co-benefits locally, including economic advantages. 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that a bottom-up approach in dealing with global problems is perhaps far more effective than lofty statements and agreements at the global level. In the Mexico Summit, more than 23,000 citizens from cities across the globe are reported to have joined their city leaders in a widespread campaign to reduce urban air pollution by signing a global petition demanding that vehicle manufacturers lead an air quality transformation. Transportation is a service for providing human mobility, but if it leads to a sharp deterioration in a very basic service, namely, that of ensuring clean air, then clearly change has to be brought about. In the Mexico City petition, automobile companies have been urged to stop producing diesel vehicles by 2025 and to support a rapid transition to electric, hydrogen and hybrid vehicles.

India has, unfortunately, not brought about the empowerment of local governance that is essential for dealing with the growing challenges rapid urbanisation presents in this country. It is, therefore, not surprising that air quality, traffic congestion, growing accumulation of waste and the lack of clean drinking water are becoming a scourge in our towns and cities.  The smart cities initiative, no doubt, has enormous potential, but it is unlikely to succeed with a top-down approach, because unless capacity is created at the local level and infrastructure for creating, tapping and applying knowledge established diligently, urban problems will outstrip any efforts and ability to innovate and come up with solutions, relying on the weak capacity that exists currently.

With the increase in India’s population and its growing share in urban areas, the increase in incomes in both urban and rural locations as well as the complexities of living in an era of mounting global challenges, we need a very different approach to local governance, which requires the strengthening of capabilities and capacity on the ground. A major delegation of powers and resources would have to be brought about for such an outcome — the time for which is long overdue.

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-2015)