For over a decade climate change has been considered one of the most significant political issues facing the international community. In order to address this challenge, attention needs to be focused not only at the international level of treaties and conventions, but also on how climate protection policy is taking shape at the local level. Germany and the UK have been leading countries for international action on climate change. However, the reductions in domestic emissions of greenhouse gas emissions achieved benefited in both countries from specific circumstances. This report details the national climate change policy, the structure of local governments, their competencies and powers, the institutionalisation of local climate change policy, the most important spheres of action and the different roles played by municipalities in local climate protection policy in both countries. Despite the formal differences in the system of local government in Germany and the UK, the spheres of action as well as the roles of municipalities in local climate protection show clear tendencies towards convergence. The challenges in addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport and planning sectors have meant that in both countries attention has focused on the energy sector as the primary arena for local policy and local action. At the same time new governance forms dominate the roles taken by local governments with respect to climate protection. The role taken by local governments in Germany is becoming more 'enabling', and hence like the UK. The convergence between the two countries can be explained by internal (national) as well as external (European) factors. First, it is evident that the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of German municipalities has been reduced considerably by their decreasing and inadequate financial resources, while UK local authorities have the potential to gain more autonomy. Second, British municipalities are mandated by the national government to take local climate and energy policy more seriously. Therefore, they have caught up with German municipalities, which are engaged in climate protection policy only on a voluntary basis. Third, the increasing European integration has significant impacts on local climate protection policy. The liberalisation of the energy and transport markets changed the German situation so that it is more akin to the UK situation, where many services are no longer provided by the municipalities themselves. The increasing convergence of both countries in the area of local climate protection suggests that there is considerable scope for experimentation with new policy instruments and for cross-national learning at the local level between German and British municipalities. (Author's abstract)

More than ten years after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which marked the institutionalization of Agenda 21 and the beginning of Local Agenda 21 processes all over the world, it is time to summarize and evaluate the situation with respect to Local Agenda 21 in Germany. Even in Germany, which can be considered as a latecomer regarding the implementation of Local Agenda 21, the diffusion of this policy innovation seems to have reached its end. This paper starts from an international, comparative perspective and Germany’s position as a latecomer regarding Local Agenda 21 initiation; however, it focuses primarily on the intranational, comparative standpoint. We analyze the diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in four German states (Länder) (Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, and Thuringia). The comparisons between Germany and other countries at international level and between the Länder at national level demonstrate that the diffusion of Local Agenda 21 depends above all on three factors: (1) local authorities’ capacities for action; (2) financial and political support from national and regional governmental organizations; and (3) (trans)national and regional agenda transfer institutions which facilitate the exchange of knowledge and know-how between local authorities, and thus accelerate the diffusion of Local Agenda 21 processes. Local authorities, which have greater capacities for action, which are better supported by the particular German state (Land) where they are located, and which show a higher degree of integration into transfer networks are more active and innovative in the area of Local Agenda 21.

 For over a decade climate change has been considered one of the most significant political issues facing the international community. In order to address this challenge, attention needs to be focused not only at the international level of treaties and conventions, but also on how climate protection policy is taking shape at the local level. Germany and the UK have been leading countries for international action on climate change. However, the reductions in domestic emissions of greenhouse gas emissions achieved benefited in both countries from specific circumstances. This report details the national climate change policy, the structure of local governments, their competencies and powers, the institutionalisation of local climate change policy, the most important spheres of action and the different roles played by municipalities in local climate protection policy in both countries. Despite the formal differences in the system of local government in Germany and the UK, the spheres of action as well as the roles of municipalities in local climate protection show clear tendencies towards convergence. The challenges in addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport and planning sectors have meant that in both countries attention has focused on the energy sector as the primary arena for local policy and local action. At the same time new governance forms dominate the roles taken by local governments with respect to climate protection. The role taken by local governments in Germany is becoming more 'enabling', and hence like the UK. The convergence between the two countries can be explained by internal (national) as well as external (European) factors. First, it is evident that the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of German municipalities has been reduced considerably by their decreasing and inadequate financial resources, while UK local authorities have the potential to gain more autonomy. Second, British municipalities are mandated by the national government to take local climate and energy policy more seriously. Therefore, they have caught up with German municipalities, which are engaged in climate protection policy only on a voluntary basis. Third, the increasing European integration has significant impacts on local climate protection policy. The liberalisation of the energy and transport markets changed the German situation so that it is more akin to the UK situation, where many services are no longer provided by the municipalities themselves. The increasing convergence of both countries in the area of local climate protection suggests that there is considerable scope for experimentation with new policy instruments and for cross-national learning at the local level between German and British municipalities. (Author's abstract)

When the topic of global governance or post-national governance arises, it generally does so in the context of the co-operation between nation states, international agreements and the role of international organizations. As opposed to this, global governance through the self-organization of transnational civil society is rarely discussed. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate the scope and limitations of global governance through civil society self-organization. The case of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which is now deemed a success, has been selected to demonstrate this phenomenon at work. What is involved here is a globally distributed environmental label for the certification of sustainably managed forests. The FSC shows how a private civil society regime can be implemented, how its implementation can be controlled and how violations can be sanctioned. It may be stated that the case of the Forest Stewardship Council is a form of global governance without nation-state involvement that can be viewed as a complete alternative to global governance through nation states. The rapid spread of the FSC system was enhanced by the dynamic combination of civil society self-organization with market mechanisms. Moreover, the FSC system fills a gap that arose from the political failure at the level of international regimes. However, it has become clear that national forest protection standards are needed for the FSC system to function smoothly. The FSC system cannot replace national legislation and its implementation by an effective administration. The fact that the FSC can rely not only on its own internal means of sanction (i.e. withdrawal of certification), but can also resort to boycotts as a potential external instrument of sanction is undoubtedly a key factor behind the success of the FSC. However, the analysis also shows the limits of global governance through selforganization: As no nation state has the norm-setting monopoly, the FSC system competes with other certification systems in many countries throughout the world. Overall, the FSC system can be deemed a success. Private standards appear to work best if a specific combination of self-organization and market mechanisms comes to fruition, if the non-state systems are embedded in nation-state systems, if resources are available outside the system that can, if necessary, be used to mobilize consumers and if the problems that necessarily arise from the competition of certification systems can be overcome. (Author's abstract)

For decades, European studies have been concerned primarily with explaining European integration and the Europeanization process. The debates have centered around the question of the extent to which the integration process and future Eastern enlargement have an impact on structures and legislative processes in the Federal Republic of Germany at national and state (Länder) level. The role of German local authorities in the European integration process has often been neglected in the course of the discussion, but German municipalities are indeed affected by European decisions in various ways. For example, on the one hand, European environmental, economic, and financial regulation often encumbers local policy with lots of rules for implementation; this has therefore had significant impact on German local self-government. It has even been asserted that the European rules undermine the German constitutional principle laid down in article 28 II of the Grundgesetz (constitution). On the other hand, there is no institutional means through which municipalities can effectively participate in the decision-making process at supranational level. While there are some advisory bodies with a liaison function, these institutions can hardly influence the legislative institutions like the European Commission or the Council of the European Union. To compensate for this institutional weakness, it is imperative that the German local authorities win over supranational-level actors to the local cause in an informal way.

The first part of this paper outlines the responsibilities in the EU and deals with the problem which consequences for the municipalities do the European regulations have. The second part describes some areas where local policy has been impeded through European decisions like those comprising the regulations that govern environmental policy, economic policy, and fiscal policy. The following part analyzes and assesses the activities of the German municipalities undertaken to counteract this impairment and their lack of influence on the supranational level. Finally, a detailed report on the City of Leipzig and its engagement in the urban network, EUROCITIES, is given. The primary objective of the paper is to reveal potential shortcomings and indicate some possibilities for local activity and influence in the European integration process. Further, the paper is meant to stimulate controversial discussion of European integration and the role of municipalities in that process.