1. Introduction
As part of a new sustainable development agenda, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development establishes a series of sustainable development goals (SDGs) “to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all” by 2030 [
1]. Given the UNWTO’s emphasis on sustainable tourism and the sector’s economic importance, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the associated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have become focal points for the study of tourism’s contribution to sustainable development and the sustainability of tourism as a whole [
1,
2,
3]. The objective of this study is to provide an institutional perspective on the tourism sector’s approach to the SDGs and the conceptualization of sustainable tourism.
The situation on Jeju Island, which is discussed in this paper, demonstrates the link between low-carbon tourism and strategies for mitigating climate change. The most effective and fundamental strategy for combating global warming is the reduction in greenhouse gases emitted by the planet. There are two steps that must be taken in order to simultaneously reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The first step is to decrease the number of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and the second is to remove any greenhouse gases that have already been released. The connection between Jeju Island’s plan to mitigate the effects of climate change and low-carbon tourism is based on these two initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.
The current agenda for sustainable tourism is highly connected with the challenge of climate change [
4]. The relationship between climate change and tourism is quite intricate. Climate change is already impacting investment, planning, and operations in the tourist industry [
5]. Tourism’s competitiveness, sustainability, and geography will be transformed by the direct and indirect effects of accelerated climate change and comprehensive governmental responses [
6,
7]. Any phenomenon that has a negative impact on economic growth endangers cultural assets and heightens security threats is incompatible with sustainable tourist development.
Managing the carbon risk associated with the transition to a net-zero economy is the most crucial job for avoiding and managing the climate-induced destruction of sustainable tourism. In other words, this includes preventing water from approaching the toxic bottom or the decarbonization transition. This involves the massive task of decarbonizing tourism in order to meet the sector’s emission reduction goals. The Tourism and Climate Change Declaration In 2005, it was estimated that tourism accounted for around 5 percent of worldwide anthropogenic CO
2 emissions [
8]. Recent research [
9] boosted the expected contribution to around 8%.
Tourism cannot be deemed sustainable until it can be decarbonized to a level commensurate with the science-based policy objectives of the Paris Climate Accord. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report identified the incompatibility of the aforementioned tourism emissions growth trend with requirements to stay within the +2 C limit [
10]. Recognizing the need to modify this emission trajectory, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) [
11] set the first emission reduction goal for the industry at 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. Later, the United Nations World Tourism Organization adopted this goal (UNWTO). In 2019, the WTTC signed the UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now initiative, pledging to achieve climate neutrality (i.e., net-zero emissions) by 2050 in accordance with the science-based goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Especially on islands, climate change tends to worsen the issue of sustainable tourism’s devastation. Long-distance island travel by airplane is a substantial contributor to global warming due to its emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, island tourism not only contributes to its own extinction but also to the repercussions of global warming, including the average increase in sea level and severe weather occurrences. Numerous experts believe that owing to global warming and sea level rise, many of the world’s islands will be swamped [
12].
Even though islands are able to withstand recurrent flooding and may even be growing in size as a result of their adaptation to the increase in sea level [
13], they still face a number of ecological concerns. Therefore, eliminating the causes of climate change is the essential approach for averting the collapse of tourism’s viability due to climate change. Climate change is caused by carbon, which results in global warming. Therefore, to eliminate the source of climate change, carbon must be eliminated. Two methods exist for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The first is to minimize carbon emissions, and the second is to absorb already created carbon emissions. It is ideal to seek sustainable tourism by including those two methods to mitigate climate change in tourist operations. Jeju Island tourism is an example of sustainable tourism development that is based on climate change mitigation.
2. Jeju Island Study Description
The tourism industry on Jeju Island (see the red circle in
Figure 1 for the location) began slowly around 1960 when the necessary transportation and lodging facilities were established. Jeju’s first travel agency, “Jeju Tourist Information Center,” was established in April 1955, followed by the establishment of daily air routes between Jeju and Seoul and regular passenger ships between Jeju and Mokpo or Busan. In addition, the Jeju Tourist Hotel, with 30 rooms, debuted as a tourist hotel in Jeju. In the early days of Jeju’s tourism policy, the central government was in charge of everything.
In 1966, in accordance with the ‘Comprehensive Land Construction Planning Act,’ the government designated the entire island of Jeju as a ‘specific area’ and developed and expanded Jeju’s tourist destinations. With the establishment of the Jeju Island Tourism Comprehensive Development Plan (target period 1973–1981) to develop the Jungmun Tourist Complex, tourist areas, and provincial parks, Jeju’s tourism development began in earnest. In 1966, roads were opened sequentially across the entire island of Jeju.
In the 1980s, as Korea entered the era of mass tourism, Jeju was reborn as Korea’s premier honeymoon destination. Large accommodations such as the Jeju Grand Hotel and the Korea Condominium were constructed, followed by the Jeju Folk Village and the Jeju Sculpture Park. With the liberalization of international travel in 1989, it began to lose its luster. Due to the International Monetary Fund’s foreign currency crisis, Jeju’s tourism industry’s external competitiveness declined dramatically in the late 1990s [
14].
In the 21st century’s wave of openness and globalization, a new change was required. As a breakthrough, the government and Jeju Island chose to establish a “Free International City” by enacting the Jeju Free International City Special Act in April 2002. This is an ambitious plan to develop Jeju as a tourism and recreation hub in Northeast Asia and to create a free international city where people, goods, and capital are free to circulate. As a result, the tourism industry has experienced significant quantitative expansion.
The tourism industry on Jeju Island has a significant impact on the local economy through various ripple channels (hub and spoke) and holds a prominent position in the Jeju economy. Since the late 2000s, Jeju’s tourism industry has grown rapidly as the number of tourists has increased (see
Figure 2).
Concerns about the structural vulnerability of Jeju’s economy, which is highly dependent on the tourism industry, have intensified in recent years as external shocks have caused tourism demand in Jeju to be highly volatile. In 2018 and 2020, when the number of tourists decreased due to the conflict with China and COVID-19, Jeju’s economic growth rate was −0.9% and −6.6%, respectively, which was significantly slower than the national rate (2.9% and −0.9%), demonstrates its extreme vulnerability to external shocks [
14].
It rose from 4.11 million in 2000 to 15.85 million in 2016, but its growth slowed in 2017 as a result of the conflict with China. Tourism revenue in Jeju increased by an average of 32.8% per year from 2006 to 2019, from 1.4 trillion won to 7.4 trillion won, and its share of Jeju’s total output rose from 9.6% to 20%. As of 2019, there were 26,955 tourism businesses and 90,270 tourism employees in Jeju, representing 40.8% and 31.5% of all businesses and employees in Jeju, respectively [
14].
Changes in the external environment, such as the generalization of short-distance air travel as a result of the proliferation of low-cost airlines and economic growth in China, appear to be the primary reasons for the rise in domestic and international demand for Jeju tourism. In a short period of time, the number of tourists has increased faster than at any of the world’s major island tourist destinations (see
Figure 3).
In addition, unlike other Korean tourist destinations, Jeju Island is not affected by the season and exhibits low seasonal characteristics, as tourists visit evenly throughout the year. As a result, as tourism revenue is generated evenly throughout the year, it will gradually have a ripple effect on the economy of Jeju, assuming there is no external shock (see
Figure 4).
Tourism and related industries directly benefit from the increase in tourists, but the environmental and social costs resulting from the increase in floating population must be borne by the entire provincial society. This unbalanced structure of benefit and cost-sharing halved the economic sensibility of the tourism industry and contributed to tourists’ negative perceptions. In fact, a survey on the perception of tourism among Jeju residents [
15] revealed that while the residents recognize the economic significance of the tourism industry, they are concerned about its negative impact on the residential environment, including traffic congestion and garbage [
14].
Due to the rapid expansion of the tourism industry, traffic increased faster than the expansion of transportation infrastructure, resulting in congestion-related social costs (see
Figure 5). The number of registered vehicles and volume of traffic on major roads increased significantly, primarily due to an increase in the number of rental cars and commercial vehicles.
Environmental pollution issues, such as household waste and greenhouse gas emissions, are worsening as a result of the influx of tourists and are emerging as a barrier to Jeju’s economy’s sustainable growth. Due to the rapid increase in the number of tourists and residents, the amount of household waste produced has skyrocketed, reaching the province’s maximum capacity.
Additionally, GHG emissions are increasing, particularly in the transportation sector, which may result in a long-term decline in agricultural, fishing, and tourism productivity. The transportation sector is responsible for 46.9% of Jeju’s greenhouse gas emissions (30.1% from roads, 13.3% from aviation, and 3.5% from shipping [
16]. As a result of estimating the productivity loss and cost of damage in Jeju as a result of global warming, the damage scale relative to GRDP and the cost per ton of carbon is greater than in other regions [
17].
In some areas, there is also the possibility that a large number of commercial facilities will move in, that congestion issues caused by an influx of tourists will worsen, and that the area’s long-term competitiveness as a clean image and tourist attraction may decline. When applied to the classification according to Butler’s tourism life cycle theory (see
Figure 6) [
17], it can be seen that tourism in Jeju is in the early stages of entering the stagnation stage as a result of the social costs associated with tourism [
14].
When Butler finally hit a plateau, he realized that there were two ways out: renewal or decline. In the final iteration of his model, he considers five possibilities ranging from complete revitalization to complete decline. Curve A shows that successful redevelopment leads to renewed growth; curve B shows that modest changes to capacity levels lead to growth; curve C shows that tourism is stabilized by cutting capacity levels; curve D shows that continued overuse of resources and a lack of investment leads to decline; and curve E shows that war, disease, or another catastrophe immediately collapses tourism.
Jeju Island is currently experiencing a variety of social costs, such as environmental issues related to the quality of life of its residents and damage to its clean image as a result of an increase in tourism, which hinders the possibility of Jeju’s economy growing sustainably. When considering the limitations of quantitative growth through an increase in the number of tourists, it will be necessary to focus on qualitative growth, such as high value-added efforts, mutual growth with local communities, and ensuring long-term sustainability in order to develop the tourism industry in Jeju in the future [
14].
3. Current and Emerging Threats and Impacts of Climate Change in the Case Study
As was previously stated, tourism is the primary economic driver of Jeju Island and a significant source of foreign currency income. Such tourism is considered a climate-dependent industry, and because Jeju Island’s popularity has increased due to its pleasant climate, the effects and impacts of climate change may have a variety of negative effects on Jeju’s tourism industry. Off the coast of Jeju Island, numerous climate-related threats have already been detected.
3.1. Tourism at Threat from Rising Sea Temperatures
The East Sea and the East China Sea are among the six seas with the most extreme seawater warming among the 52 Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) seas introduced by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States to protect the world’s coastal regions (super-fast) (see
Figure 7). Jeju Island is situated in the East Sea and the East China Sea, where the rate of water temperature increase is approximately three-and-a-half times the global average.
While Jeju Island’s temperature has increased by 1.7 °C over the past 58 years, the sea water temperature has increased by 2 °C over the past 36. The rise in seawater temperature on Jeju Island is closely linked to the rise in global temperature and the Yangtze River low salinity fountain in China, which is adjacent to Jeju Island. China’s summer floods have significantly worsened as a result of global climate change. This is supported by the likelihood of heavy precipitation.
Extreme precipitation refers to a phenomenon in which the amount of precipitation significantly deviates from the normal value or exceeds or falls short of a given benchmark. In other words, it means torrential rain in the short term and summertime drought. During the rainy season in East Asia, in the western part of China, particularly in the Yangtze River region, it rains heavily for a brief period, followed by a period of high temperatures and drought. As the life cycle of the summer monsoon, which dominates summer weather, became clearer, the Yangtze River region experienced more extreme precipitation. In China’s Yangtze River basin, the frequency of flooding has increased due to global warming [
19].
Considering the data on climate change in Korea as a result of global warming, the rate of temperature increase on the Korean Peninsula over the past 100 years (1912–2008) was 1.70 °C, while the global average rate of increase over the same time period was 0.74 degrees Celsius. It was discovered to be higher than that of the city, and the urbanization-induced increase in temperature was remarkable [
20]. According to the National Institute of Fisheries Science, the rate of increase in surface water temperature in Korean waters has exceeded the rate of increase in global sea temperature, and the average annual increase in surface water temperature over the past decade (1995–2004) has increased by 0.67 °C [
21]. Particularly, the results of the analysis of changes in water temperature along the coast of Jeju Island indicate that Jeju Island’s coast has warmed by 0.31 °C over the past 21 years [
22].
Desertification is the greatest threat posed by such an increase in seawater temperature. A rise in water temperature caused by global warming is the leading cause of sea desertification. Calcium carbonate is only soluble in carbon dioxide-containing water, and the lower the water temperature, the more soluble it is. As the temperature of seawater rises as a result of global warming, its solubility decreases, and calcium carbonate that is not dissolved eventually adheres to the seafloor and rocks.
Inhabiting seaweeds such as seaweed, kelp, and Ecklonia cannot grow if the rock is coated with calcium carbonate. Sea desertification is the disappearance of seaweeds in rocky coastal areas and their replacement with limestone algae such as coral reefs, which destroys the entire marine ecosystem. It is simple to comprehend when viewed as desertification that occurs on the ocean rather than on land. When the rock’s surface turns white or red, this is known as a ‘whitening event’. (see
Figure 8).
In the case of Jeju Island, more than 30 percent of the entire coastline is affected by bleaching [
20]. This phenomenon also diminishes the ocean’s purification capacity. Algae, a marine plant, is the base of the marine ecosystem’s food chain, and species diversity can only be maintained if algae production is increased. Destruction of marine biodiversity is directly related to the development of marine desertification.
Jeju Island’s coastal and aquatic tourism is negatively affected by sea desertification’s destruction of marine biodiversity. Numerous tourists who visit Jeju Island appreciate scuba diving and the coastal scenery. The value of coastal and aquatic tourism is comprised of “on-reef” values, which include scuba diving and snorkeling, and “reef-adjacent” values. These reef-adjacent values include sandy beaches, protected waters, healthy fisheries, coastal protection, and picturesque views, all of which are benefits of healthy coral reefs.
If sea desertification on Jeju Island continues, the island’s most popular tourist attraction will vanish. The desertification of the sea surrounding Jeju Island results in the destruction of marine resources and the disappearance of natural attractions. This signifies the end of sustainable tourism.
3.2. Tourism at Threat from Sea Level Rise
In the past 40 years, the sea level around the Korean Peninsula has risen approximately 2 mm per year, and the Jeju Island region has risen approximately 4 to 6 mm per year, demonstrating the greatest impact of sea level rise in the country (Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency 2015). In the second half of the 21st century, the sea level on Jeju Island is projected to rise by 53–65 cm, according to the IPCC climate change scenario [
23].
37% of Jeju’s coastline is susceptible to natural disasters due to sea level rise [
24]. The map above depicts the distribution of each disaster vulnerability rating for the coastal areas within 1 km of the coast of Jeju, taking into account various factors such as current and future climate change, flooding and tsunami damage, population change, development projects, and low-lying terrain. This is a data analysis of comprehensive disaster vulnerability due to sea level rise, which demonstrates ‘disaster vulnerability’.
In the map seen above, Grade 1 signifies the greatest degree of catastrophe risk, while Grade 4 represents the lowest (see
Figure 9). The eastern region of Jeju was determined to be the most vulnerable, followed by the western and northern regions. In contrast, the southern region exhibited comparatively low vulnerability. 37% of Jeju’s coastal areas were vulnerable to sea level rise, including 8.5% of disaster-vulnerable Grade I areas and 28.5% of Grade II areas. By region, Vulnerability Grade I is concentrated in the eastern coastal area, and the western portion of Jeju is also highly vulnerable. In contrast, some southern regions of Jeju Island were analyzed and found to have relatively low vulnerability scores.
These sea-level increases result in the loss of sand, flora, and beach erosion damage on Jeju Island. Sea level rise is not the primary cause of beach erosion; it also has the potential to exacerbate the problem by lowering the extent of the beach. Also, approaching waters to diminish the area of Jeju Island’s coastal ecosystems, which are the foundation of its nature-based tourist industry. Many of Jeju Island’s beaches are high-use settings with intense strain on dune ecosystems and little room for escape.
The loss of sand is a significant issue for tourism on Jeju Island, as severe weather events accelerate natural erosion rates, resulting in a drop in amenity value and, in the worst-case scenario, the loss of beach access or unsafe beach profiles. Combined, sea level rise and severe weather events increase the danger of erosion. Consequently, this has a significant impact on Jeju Island’s sustainable tourism.
5. Lessons Learned from Tested Climate Actions in the Case Study
5.1. Conflict between Stakeholders
The Jeju Provincial Government initiated a project to link climate change mitigation and Jeju tourism. This project aimed to connect climate change mitigation efforts with the revitalization of Jeju tourism. To make the project more concrete, the Jeju provincial government sought the cooperation of several stakeholders (see
Table 3). The Jeju provincial government convened a working group of stakeholders from various fields to investigate the relationship.
To link tourism activities and climate action in Jeju, the Jeju provincial government, first invited the Jeju Tourism Association and the cultural content planning expert group. We learned about the climate change crisis threatening Jeju tourism activities from the Jeju Tourism Association. We learned how to use the contents of Jeju tourism activities as tourism content related to climate action.
The wind power sector was the site of major stakeholder disagreements. This is because if all profits generated from the sale of wind-generated electricity are returned to the relevant private companies, wind, Jeju Island’s shared resource, will be converted into private property. By soliciting feedback from private companies in charge of wind power generation facilities and operations, the Jeju Haenyeo Association, Jeju residents, and the Jeju Provincial Council, the Jeju local government enacted the ‘Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Wind Resources Sharing Fund Ordinance’.
Businesses that earn from wind energy give 17.5% of their yearly net revenue to the development profits fund. The “Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Wind Resources Sharing Fund Ordinance” is a legal tool used to accomplish this. There are various ways in which the profits generated from wind power development are used for coastal villages. It is used to encourage the development, use, and spread of new and renewable energy, to help vulnerable people get energy, and to educate people about new and renewable energy and promote it.
5.2. The Role of Local Governments as Conflict Mediators
Tourism on Jeju Island based on climate change mitigation was able to launch successfully due to the amicable management of conflicts between project stakeholders, particularly those relating to wind power generation. For the purpose of resolving the conflict, the provincial government of Jeju has established the Conflict Mediation Council. Six steps comprised the procedure for resolving conflicts at the Conflict Mediation Council meeting.
Step 1: Application Research Step
Step 2: Constituting the Council
Step 3: Preparation of basic operating rules for the Council
Step 4: Commencing the coordination of the council
Step 5: Preparing a draft consultation
Step 6: Developing an agreement
In the initial phase, a working team was formed that clarified the opinions of conflicting parties and simultaneously resolved the conflict. Step 2 involved determining if additional stakeholder participation was required to manage the conflict. Additionally, a mediator was chosen to resolve disputes between stakeholders. In the third stage, working-level officials and stakeholders reached an agreement to prepare basic operating rules for the efficient operation of the council. In step 4, the agenda and issues to be discussed by the participants were clearly outlined, and periodic meetings for discussion and consensus-building were held. In step 5, issues were discussed and mediated among stakeholders, and a draft agreement was drafted. In step six, a final agreement was drafted and written in collaboration.
Through conflict management and agreement among stakeholders for Jeju tourism based on climate change mitigation on Jeju Island, they gain a clearer understanding of the path to success. Additionally, this enhances one’s relationship with the sustainable tourism project. Consequently, you will be able to prioritize tasks effectively. If climate action projects are to be successful, numerous parties involved must encounter and learn to manage conflict. When dealing with multiple stakeholders, conflict is necessary for fostering creativity, problem-solving, and the development of climate action projects. Conflict can yield numerous benefits for the climate action project and its participants if managed properly. It assists stakeholders in determining what they value most, establishing productive relationships with other stakeholders, and achieving their desired outcomes, among other things. It has been demonstrated that healthy conflict benefits climate action projects by allowing people to release pent-up emotions, fostering the growth of climate action projects, and sparking new ideas.
6. Conclusions
The manner of implementation is increasingly seen as the deciding factor in the success or failure of climate initiatives rather than the acts themselves. There is a significantly more nuanced context for climate action, however, as is well recognized. It is argued that climate actions always resemble ‘dilemmas’ that are resistant to change, have multiple possible causes, and have potential solutions that vary in place and time according to the local context and that these factors that shape and influence implementation are complex, multifaceted, and multilevel [
51].
As this level of comprehension has developed, the provincial government of Jeju Island has come to realize that more has to be done to guarantee that intentions are translated into outcomes or, in other words, to prevent the failure of climate change programs. Instead of allowing climate action plans to drift into total or even partial failure, the provincial government of Jeju Island is starting to take an interest in measures to enhance and support the climate action policy process, particularly the implementation phase.
The following is a summary of the essential elements of the climate action project created by the Jeju local government that can be duplicated as they were in successful climate action projects in developing nations. First, it is essential to foresee and plan for the reasons for climate change project failure. Second, a program to assist climate action initiatives must be established.
6.1. Identifying the Causes of Climate Action Project Failure
According to the consensus of various Jeju Island public officials in charge of climate action initiatives, there are four primary reasons why climate action programs fail. First, too optimistic expectations; second, ineffective decentralized governance; third, improper cooperative project choices; and fourth, the project cycle’s caprices.
Be wary of too optimistic climate action project assumptions. The likelihood of a climate action project’s success is often based on four factors. The first misconception is that the purpose and significance of a climate action initiative would be readily communicated. Second, in order to support a climate action project, enough information on its budget, timeline, benefits, and drawbacks must be established in advance, but this is seldom the case. Thirdly, the stakeholders are misunderstood. People often exaggerate their capacity to reconcile divergent viewpoints, which is rarely simple in actuality. Fourth, organizations in the public sector are characterized by their pursuit of quick outcomes. Civil service institutions, by their very nature, prioritize short-term results, and it should be acknowledged that this may be harmful to the eventual success of climate action.
The second issue is dispersed governance’s inefficiency. The difficulty of establishing a particular degree of consistency at the private level may be a problem for government-led climate change efforts. Even if governance is centralized as opposed to decentralized, its execution will rely heavily on local conditions. In addition, planners of climate action projects must consider the tangled engagement of several parties with diverse information sources.
Third, there is an absence of collaborative project development. In spite of the fact that the majority of interventions will almost definitely have far-reaching effects on external parties, projects have a tendency to be designed in administrative silos. In addition, despite rising scholarly interest in the development of concepts and instruments to promote inter-organizational collaboration, progress has been, at best inconsistent and restricted. Inadequate collaborative project planning and the inability to establish a common ground for public problem-solving via constructive management of differences remain two of the leading drivers of future implementation problems [
51].
Fourth, the instability of the project life cycle Climate action project creators (politicians and officials) are often not held responsible for the consequences of their projects; in the case of failure, they will likely have moved on or resigned. As a result, individuals are readily enticed by the promise of short-term outcomes. This might result in rushing through climate action programs rather than diving into the ugly, time-consuming, and aggravating intricacies of how things can really play out. There is evidence that the political will required to push the development of long-term projects tends to wane with time. The worry is that the people who come up with climate action projects would gain credit for getting the law passed rather than for solving any problems that may arise during implementation. The latter is more likely to be seen as ‘someone else’s concern’.
6.2. Establishment of a Process for Supporting Climate Action Projects
A four-step procedure must be designed in order to successfully implement a climate action initiative. First, the development of climate action projects; second, the monitoring and administration of climate action projects; third, the support of climate action projects; and fourth, the evaluation of climate action projects.
In the first step, project preparation, the civil officials engaged in the project analyze the viability of the climate action project from the outset and, in reality, pay more attention to the implementation’s practicability through improved project design. In such situations, a project-wide plan should be developed during the drafting phase, covering areas such as planning, governance, stakeholder engagement, monitoring, review and evaluation, and strategies for resource management [
51].
For the second phase, monitoring and administration of the climate action project, it is necessary to form a department responsible for tracking and managing the project’s progress. Local governments (or central governments) should create a department at a higher level to supervise climate change policies scattered across the civil service. In order to track and manage climate action projects, the higher level should focus on three factors.
The primary duty is performance monitoring. This entails assessing a constant stream of departmental performance data in order to track progress toward important policy objectives. The second activity is problem-solving. This includes doing field visits to identify distribution bottlenecks and regions where more resources may be needed to address specific problems. The third is an evaluation of progress. This requires supplying government authorities with frequent progress reports. While the bulk of these units has been headquartered in the government’s center, this is not a prerequisite; others may be established in key ministries or for special priority initiatives [
51].
The third phase, support for the execution of the climate action project, refers to assistance with the initiative’s actualization. Due to the inherent complexity and duration of climate action projects, tracking and managing them may not be sufficient to ensure effective implementation. The implementation of climate change programs necessitates hearing the views of individuals on the front lines because frontline employees are more familiar with the problems of delivery than climate action project strategists.
This assistance is more concerned with fostering the art and craft of policy implementation than with elucidating legal responsibilities or addressing the need for legislative guidance, although both are crucial. It involves identifying what is being conducted well, what needs better, and how to produce additional capacity in the most efficient manner. All of this will need the formation of an intermediate body to bridge the divide between national and local narratives. The formation of “intermediary organizations”—groups of varying forms that promote successful implementation alongside and frequently under the direction of the government—is one approach.
The fourth phase is to assess the level of completion of the climate action initiative. Here, wit is constructive; it will seek solutions to a number of crucial problems. Was the problem correctly identified? Were there any major omissions? Were any important data left out of the analysis? Were the aims of the climate action project met? Are the taught lessons useful to future endeavors? In a rational, evidence-based environment, the answers to these questions may be utilized to modify implementation trajectories and influence decisions about whether to renew, prolong, or stop a project [
51].