Intersectoral implementation for the transition to resilient and climate-neutral cities

Ecological transitions require mechanisms for coordination across policy sectors, actors, and policy instruments as well as solutions for countering administrative pillarization (i.e., policy integration). The implementation of policy integration creates tensions between sectoral objectives, such as renewable energy, food production, and biodiversity, and between the siloes of the public administration, as well as contestation by active citizens and politicians who mobilize around single sectoral issues. To tame such tensions several cities in Europe are developing and implementing “integrated climate plans” that organize the to-date-disordered ecological transition as well as the participation of citizens and stakeholders to this resourceful and conflictual process. While existing literature highlights intersectoral conflicts and interactions at the international level (e.g., at the level of the Sustainable Development Goals), practical insights on cross-sectoral integration during local ecological transitions remain limited and little is known on the conditions that favor or hinder the (intersectoral) implementation of climate objectives. To address this shortcoming, this study compares the transition pathways toward climate-neutrality and resilience in the cities of Bologna (Italy) and Lausanne (Switzerland). It aims to understand to what extend policy fields (actors, policies, administrative structures) integrates at the local level for the ecological transition, as well as to explore the conditions for the implementation of policy integration practices at the local level. I test a number of hypotheses to understand the effects of political an institutional factors such as: the degree of vertical coordination between levels of government, the local ownership of strategic assets (land, energy production, waste, etc.), local resource availability (personnel and finances), the political alignment between local political parties regarding environmental policies as well as conflicts among stakeholders. Employing a mixed-method approach (quantitative text analysis, social network analysis, qualitative content analysis) and a comparative research design, I analyze approximately one-hundred policy documents and forty interviews (data collection is ongoing), revealing conflicts and interactions between policy fields involved in the two cities’ ecological transitions (environment, agriculture, housing, energy, mobility, social policies, economy, etc.). Furthermore, this exercise also helps identify capacity building processes that temper intersectoral conflicts or foster positive interactions. Preliminary findings show that the implementation of local ‘integrated climate plans’ requires transformative governance solutions, high level of policy resources and a bold, political deliberate effort by multiple actors to abandon sectoral routines and mindsets. Hence, they highlight the need to retrench from path-dependent and pillarized governance practices, processes of de-centralization typical of new public management reforms, as well as rational and simplistic views of the policy process. This study offers a conceptual framework for understanding the implementation of policy integration practices, emphasizing political and institutional influences on intersectoral climate policy implementation, and the role of local actors in shaping interaction between policy fields. Its robust methodology sets it apart from traditional studies on policy integration. It contributes to the study of ecological transitions in Europe by shedding light on some of the governance and coordination mechanisms that are put in place by cities to ensure the coherent implementation thereof.