From an urban scholar’s point of view, I should begin with a statement which has gradually gained attention in recent decades’ framing of the climate problem: the climate problem is not only a global, but at least equally a local challenge. This statement indicates a shift in the approach to the issue by the international community. At the early stages of global climate governance, climate change was regarded as a problem of common property; in other words, as a global problem requiring a global solution. As a result, international efforts focused on developing an international agreement that would force nation-states to take common but differentiated actions in line with their different levels of responsibility for the emergence of the climate problem. Thus, when the game started, national governments were almost the only players on the field. However, over time, the approach to climate change has come to be reframed due to the failure of international negotiations to achieve global solutions, as well as to the growing evidence of a range of climate change impacts in different localities. The unevenness intrinsic to the climate problem has become obvious: neither the causes nor the impacts of climate change are spread evenly across space. This understanding has influenced the framing of the climate change problem: we now recognize climate change as an issue shaped by diverse processes that vary among and within countries, and even among different social groups in the same country. This new way of thinking about climate has strengthened our understanding of the links between cities and climate change.Footnote ¹ Nation-states are no longer the only players in the game, as municipal governments have gained a central position among the multiplicity of actors engaged with the climate change issue.

The significance of the city as a site for addressing the climate problem is hardly surprising, as urban processes are highly related to climate change.Footnote ² On the one hand, the city is part of the climate problem, while on the other hand it can be part of the climate solution. The world is highly urbanizing, not only in demographic but also in economic terms. As of 2014, cities accommodate 54 percent of the world’s population, and as centers for major economic activities they also generate high proportions of the world’s total GDP. The increasing concentration of people and economic activities in cities results in high demand for and consumption of energy, which in turn leads to remarkable increases in cities’ share in the total amount of greenhouse gases (GHG). At the same time, cities are potential sites of climate vulnerability due to the fact that they are historically located in coastal areas or along rivers that are highly exposed and vulnerable to climatic challenges. We are now fully aware that most of the impacts of climate change will be felt severely in urban areas.

Despite being part of the problem, cities can also be part of the solution. First of all, municipal governments are in a position to control and manage many of the processes that produce emissions and shape urban vulnerability to climate change. Second, cities provide economies of scale that make city-wide solutions to climate change more cost efficient and effective. And last but not least, cities, as places where people from different backgrounds and various economic actors are located, can produce innovative thinking in regards to developing new solutions and indeed act as laboratories to test innovative approaches and solutions.

Since the mid-1990s, cities’ involvement in climate governance has progressed in two major stages distinguished primarily by the governance practices and policy responses applied. During the first stage, classified as “municipal voluntarism,” urban responses to climate change were made voluntarily by municipal authorities, based mostly on the efforts of certain proactive individuals within municipal administrations.Footnote ³ However, in the second stage, which marked the rise of a more strategic approach, municipal authorities started to work to integrate climate change into wider urban agendas and to develop more structural responses in collaboration with other private and non-governmental actors. In the wake of the ratification of the Paris Agreement, urban climate governance, as it stands, remains highly fragmented, shaped by a burgeoning number of initiatives and actions being taken by a range of municipal, private, and non-governmental actors.Footnote ⁴ Whether or not the sum total of this diversity of local actions can bring about a global change is still unclear, and this is why there have been recent efforts to coordinate urban initiatives and bring them into dialogue, such as the 2014 launch of the Compact of MayorsFootnote ⁵ by major international organizations and municipal networks.

Moving our focus from the global level to the national context of Turkey, I will now discuss the progress in climate governance in Turkish cities. As is widely known, Turkey’s official position in climate negotiations is largely shaped by the argument concerning the country’s “special circumstances,” as well as by its oft-repeated request to gain access to climate finance. This, in a way, manifests the national government’s reluctance to take serious action to address the climate problem. Owing to the centralized nature of governance and public administration in Turkey, municipal governments are highly dependent on the center in both administrative and financial terms. As such, the reluctance of the national government to address climate change has resulted in poor progress on urban climate governance in Turkey: cities are not provided with either clear guidance or strong support from the central administration; documents on national climate change policy either suggest broad or non-binding goals or simply provide local authorities with very basic instructions; and other related legal and policy frameworks barely include climate change-related goals at all. Thus, municipal involvement in climate policy and governance in Turkey is shaped mainly by proactive or motivated individuals at the local level.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that nothing happens on the ground in Turkish cities. There are several cities in Turkey that have already got involved in climate change policy in one way or another, but these policies and actions show a great variety in terms of scope and scale. Gaziantep and Bursa can be considered the frontrunners of urban climate governance in Turkey. The Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality was the first municipal government in Turkey to develop a climate change action plan with the support of EU funds,Footnote ⁶ while the Bursa Metropolitan Municipality hosted an international project, funded by the UK’s Foreign Office, that aimed to develop a guidelineFootnote ⁷ and road map for cities to prepare their own city-level climate change adaptation strategy and action plans. Bursa also volunteered to develop its climate change action plan in accordance with the guideline and road map document. Furthermore, in recent years Turkish municipalities have been increasingly participating in transnational municipal networks: to date, 11 municipalities have signed the Covenant of Mayors,Footnote ⁸ with eight of them already having their climate action plans approved.Footnote ⁹

Almost all progressive efforts regarding climate policy in Turkish cities are, in a way, related to international connections, with either motivation and inspiration or funding for most of the ongoing initiatives and actions originating from external sources. Under such conditions, where almost no push is forthcoming from either the central government or society, cities are mostly left on their own to develop their position on climate governance. This may at first seem positive, as it frees up cities, enabling them to frame the climate problem in line with their own local needs and to define the associated targets and policies aimed at addressing the problem. Nonetheless, it is not so positive on the ground, since most cities in Turkey lack the required in-house capacity and financial resources needed to come up with sound and comprehensive initiatives and interventions meant to address climate change. In an age where cities and their populations are constantly changing according to the impacts of global environmental change and global human mobilityFootnote ¹⁰ even as they are affected by them, Turkish cities need to begin to engage more deeply with the challenges they are facing.