Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
atmosphere
Article
Learning by Doing: Co-Benefits Drive National Plans for
Climate and Air Quality Governance
Clara Mewes * and Charlotte Unger
Citation: Mewes, C.; Unger, C.
Learning by Doing: Co-Benefits Drive
National Plans for Climate and Air
Quality Governance. Atmosphere 2021,
12, 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos12091184
Academic Editor: Guoyi Zhou
Received: 27 July 2021
Accepted: 10 September 2021
Published: 14 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), 14467 Potsdam, Germany; charlotte.unger@iass-potsdam.de
*Correspondence: clara.mewes@iass-potsdam.de
Abstract:
What drives countries to realize more integrated policymaking? The co-benefits concept
highlights the win–win situations that can arise if one policy measure addresses two or more policy
goals, e.g., air quality and health benefits resulting from a climate policy. Scholars have suggested that
decision makers, if confronted with the evidence of co-benefits, would update their beliefs and adopt
stronger or more ambitious climate policies. In other words, a learning process takes place. This
paper looks at the policy processes in two countries, Mexico and Nigeria, as part of the Supporting
National Action and Planning (SNAP) initiative under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC).
The SNAP initiative supports governments with policymaking and implementation for a reduction
in short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). This paper seeks to reveal how learning processes and their
outcomes are influenced by co-benefits as a specific type of information. Looking at an example of
how the co-benefits concept is applied in political practice offers valuable insights into how learning is
part of the policymaking process and can shape its outcomes, such as national (climate) action plans.
Keywords:
co-benefits; climate policy; air quality policy; integrative policy; learning; governance;
co-impacts; SLCPs
1. Introduction
The world has entered the so-called decade of action on climate change. The next
10 years will be decisive in preventing a temperature increase of over 2
◦
C vis-a-vis pre-
industrial levels. Despite scientists’ warnings about the catastrophic consequences of
inaction, ambitious climate policies are often blocked by concerns over negative conse-
quences for the economy or disadvantages for constituents in other areas, such as the
mobility sector. The co-benefits concept may help alleviate such concerns, highlighting
the win–win situations that can arise if one policy measure addresses two or more policy
goals, e.g., air quality and health benefits resulting from a climate policy measure. As an
integrated approach to policymaking, the co-benefits concept can maximize synergies and
minimize tradeoffs, mobilize support, and enhance environmental ambition.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the term ‘co-benefits’ and its application in policy
are rarely looked at by scholars. Science has focused on the measurement and quantification
of economic and air quality benefits [
1
–
3
], but only a handful of articles on co-benefits are
rooted in social science. Very few studies analyzed the role that the conceptualization of
co-benefits plays in governance [
4
]. Why and how is the concept of co-benefits used in
policymaking? How does it influence the learning process that leads to more integrated
climate policy measures?
This paper approaches the described research gap by providing two case studies
that elucidate the usage of co-benefits in a policymaking process. Specifically, it examines
how the application of the co-benefits approach developed by the Climate and Clean Air
Coalition (CCAC) triggered a learning process that led to integrated short-lived climate
pollutant (SLCP) policy plans in Mexico and Nigeria. With this analysis, the paper can
further offer valuable insights into how new evidence is digested in policy processes
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091184 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 2 of 14
and how an international transnational initiative—the Supporting National Action and
Planning (SNAP) initiative by the CCAC—can trigger and amplify climate policymaking
through its co-benefits-based methodology. It contributes to gaining a more practical, case
study-based knowledge on co-benefits and learning processes.
The paper starts by offering an overview of the co-benefits concept and briefly intro-
duces the literature on learning. It then presents a framework that specifies the conditions
that enable learning for policymaking in epistemic contexts, with a specific focus on identi-
fying co-benefits. The practical part of this paper introduces the CCAC, its approach to
co-benefits, and its SNAP initiative, and then applies the learning framework to the cases
of Mexico and Nigeria. This research ultimately scrutinizes and discusses how co-benefits,
as a particular type of information, amplify or attenuate the conditions enabling learning
in policymaking.
2. Co-Benefits Can Lead to a Learning Process for Policymaking
2.1. The Development of a Co-Benefits Concept
Integrated policymaking or integrated policy approaches focus on the interconnect-
edness of the many areas of sustainable development. They stand for the idea that many
policy instruments can be made more effective when not only tackling one goal but also
taking into account the concerns of other policy fields. The assessment and information
on co-benefits can be seen as one way toward more integrated policy making. The term
‘co-benefits’ first appeared in academia and official policy documents in the 1990s. It im-
plies a win–win strategy where one single policy measure can address two or more policy
goals [
5
–
7
]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines co-benefits
as the ‘positive effects that a policy or measure aimed at one objective might have on
other objectives, thereby increasing the total benefits for society or the environment’ [
8
]
(p. 546). The discussion surrounding co-benefits is part of a more comprehensive mindset
shift in the international community, where the focus has shifted from who should reduce
emissions to how to align and integrate policies on development and climate change.
Despite the concept’s prevalence, neither is there a fixed definition of what counts
as a ‘co-benefit’ nor does the concept have clearly identifiable boundaries [
6
]. Substantial
methodological complications remain, including difficulties in monetizing several types of
co-benefits [
9
], accounting for different beneficiaries and avoiding double counting [
10
],
and establishing a causality between policy programs and co-benefits [
6
]. The concept is
often claimed to be linked to incremental measures that do not address the root causes
of climate change and are, therefore, labeled as insufficient to effectively respond to the
climate crisis [
5
,
6
]. As the concept is not sufficiently defined, Dubash et al. identified the
risk that co-benefits could motivate and sell opportunistic policies [11].
Several scholars have produced comprehensive reviews of the co-benefit
literature [
5
,
6
,
12
]. The different concepts and approaches can be broadly summarized
into three varying strands of understanding the term ‘co-benefit’: climate co-benefits,
development or climate policy co-benefits, and benefit synergies or co-impacts [
5
,
6
]. Cli-
mate co-benefits arise from policies that do not prioritize climate mitigation or adaptation.
Climate policy co-benefits are additional benefits resulting from climate policies, such as
improvements in air, soil and water quality, biodiversity, economic and organizational
performance, and energy security. Benefit synergies or co-impacts result from policies that
are specifically designed to reach two goals simultaneously. The difference in these three
understandings is related to the specifics of the agenda [
6
]. Overall, the term ‘co-benefits’
is understood and applied quite broadly, for example, when focusing on climate policy,
with respect to its scope (mitigation, adaptation), time frame (short-, mid-, long-term), and
whether the benefits are intentional or not.
In more recent political practice, policymakers seem to refrain from prioritizing cli-
mate change, instead choosing a more neutral term, as can be observed in international
initiatives working on co-benefits. For example, the CCAC defines them as ‘multiple
benefits’ (Interview 1, Interview 2). The literature on co-benefits shows that, in particu-
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 3 of 14
lar, air pollution reduction through climate change mitigation is of substantial economic
value [
3
] and could save up to 1.82 million lives annually [
2
]. Co-benefits resulting from
improved air quality and human health are in many cases equal to or even larger than
mitigation costs [
5
]. In a global modeling study, Xie, Weng, and Cai argued that integrated
assessment models that do not take co-benefits into account unavoidably belittle the real
benefits of climate policies [
3
]. Therefore, proponents of the co-benefits concept conclude
that, by including co-benefits in cost–benefit analyses, the decision based on these analyses
becomes more balanced [
5
]. One often-emphasized appeal of the co-benefits concept is
that it functions as a counterweight to the usual cost-based argument blocking climate
change policies [
1
,
5
,
6
]. Economic concerns over mitigation costs and the bias to perceive
environmental protection as a zero-sum tradeoff with economic development [
13
] are
usually key obstacles for the adaptation of climate policies. The co-benefits concept is
supposed to alleviate such economic concerns, highlighting the win–win situations that
can arise if one single policy measure addresses two or more policy goals.
Some researchers have argued for the use of the more neutral term ‘co-impacts’ rather
than ‘co-benefits’ to indicate that the expected impacts of a policy can also be negative [
4
].
For example, a climate policy that focuses on diesel-fueled cars may lead to lower CO
2
emissions, but have an additional negative impact on air quality. In this paper, we use the
term ‘co-benefits’, as it was this positive and gains-orientated narrative that pushed the
policy processes in the two analyzed cases.
The positive framing of the co-benefits concept, its evidence-based approach, and its
advocacy potential can strengthen climate change mitigation by presenting substantial
empirical evidence with a persuasive price tag [
6
,
14
]. Theoretically, co-benefits can also
facilitate decision making and overcome ideological divides [
15
], improve the resonance
of climate policies with local priorities [
16
], and open up possibilities for decisions and
policies that are socioeconomically sound and rooted in science [5].
2.2. Learning as Part of the Policymaking Process
While the concept is very appealing from a theoretical viewpoint, the question remains
of how information on co-benefits enters and impacts the policymaking process. Scholars
have argued that decision makers go through a learning process when presented with
new or updated evidence (e.g., on co-benefits). This process can also be triggered by
personal–organizational experience, social interaction with other actors, or the influence
of international actors. During the process, decision makers update their knowledge and
assumptions about public policy [
17
], e.g., about ambitious climate policies. In other
words, information on co-benefits can act as a trigger or an amplifier of learning processes
in policymaking.
Over the past decades, social science-based literature on learning has produced a broad
variety of learning taxonomies, concepts, and methods and reviews [
17
,
18
]. Two types of
learning are specifically of interest for policymaking: instrumental learning and political
learning. Instrumental learning refers to problem-solving-oriented learning and the use of
professional and scientific standards to update and reform policy instruments [
19
]. Political
learning captures the idea that policymakers may also learn in a way that assists political
strategies and power-oriented goals [19], e.g., re-election.
The identification and usage of co-benefits is mostly a knowledge-driven endeavor.
Therefore, this work concentrates on learning in what Dunlop and Radaelli described as an
epistemic context [
20
]. Experts are perceived as technically skilled and competent, whereby
they must have authoritative knowledge that is policy-relevant and possess soft skills
(communication, leadership, and entrepreneurship). Additionally, decision makers are in a
‘ready-to-learn’ state, and experts can accommodate timelines of policymaking [20].
2.3. A Framework to Analyze the Role of Co-Benefits in Learning Processes
Combining Dunlop and Radelli’s context specific mechanisms [
20
] and Trein’s insights
into the different learning types [
19
], this paper frames the following three variables as
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 4 of 14
characteristics for a learning process in policymaking: (1) problem pressure, a variable
taken from Trein’s study [
19
], (2) the political institutional setting and procedures, which
combine Trein’s findings [
19
] with Dunlop and Radaelli’s observations [
20
], and (3) policy
entrepreneurship, which was added in this paper to take into account the role of individuals
and small groups in the learning process. Particularly in epistemic contexts, experts and
their involvement in the policy process can have a significant influence on the learning
process. All three variables are interdependent and mutually influence each other.
Problem pressure is a key factor in the decision-making process [
19
,
21
]. It entails
the demands for reform in a policy domain allocated by the environment of the political
system in which it takes place [
19
]. The literature on environmental policies, for example,
identified carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions, levels of air pollution, or energy use as problem
pressure [
22
]. Trein argued that problem pressure can be low, median, and high and that
higher problem pressure attracts greater attention from the public and interest groups [
19
].
Under median problem pressure, the political system is ready to absorb new knowledge.
Yet, problem pressure is highly dependent on its perception by policymakers [
19
] and that
they perceive the problem as real [
21
]. Because co-benefits are applicable to a wide range
of policy goals and effect sizes, information on co-benefits helps to link a policy proposal
to other important problems, enhancing its prospects for moving up on the agenda. Under
high problem pressure, time might not suffice to quantitatively assess the co-benefits. Yet,
co-benefits might be used as a narrative, increasing the chances of political learning.
The political institutional setting and procedures condition the way in which policy-
makers learn. They can, thus, drive or inhibit a learning process and represent the context
for policymaking. For example, the structural characteristics of governmental agencies
are important. Clear responsibilities and good cooperation and coordination among the
different governmental agencies will benefit a learning process and facilitate policymaking
in general. In epistemic contexts, learning is enabled by consensual decision making [
19
]
and cooperative informal institutions [
20
], where the policy process is usually long and
incremental, including negotiations with many different stakeholders (e.g., governmental
actors, science, civil society, and private sector). The presence of statutory rights of consul-
tation ensures that experts are included, consulted, and listened to by policymakers [
20
].
Additionally, stakeholder involvement, which includes a broad range of activities, such as
informal and formal exchange meetings, dialogues, negotiations, informative sessions, and
virtual and in-person consultations, can have a significant influence on the learning pro-
cess. Many countries have established stakeholder consultations into their policymaking
cycles. The regular exchange with diverse stakeholders may be more time-consuming for
policymaking but can lead to a more sustainable learning process and, moreover, increase
a policy’s chances of being adopted and implemented effectively. Such processes, where
stakeholders tend to defend their interests and positions in order to gain the most favor-
able outcomes, can be facilitated by a co-benefits-based narrative. Co-benefits can couple
different interests [
14
], thereby driving cooperation and consensus making. Identifying
co-benefits can allow for a more complete comprehension of the effects of the proposed
policies and build up support for mitigation measures [5].
Policy entrepreneurs are individuals or small teams that advocate for policy change
and act as drivers for a learning process. In an epistemic context, experts as policy en-
trepreneurs can trigger successful instrumental learning if they have authoritative knowl-
edge which is policy-relevant and exhibit soft skills in communication, leadership, and
entrepreneurship to hold the attention of powerful elites [
20
]. They are most influential
when they manage to uncover win–win opportunities [
23
] when redefining the problem.
For example, instead of depicting environmental protection efforts as posing a zero-sum
tradeoff, they can emphasize opportunities for economic development arising from the
development of new green technologies [
13
]. Overall, policy entrepreneurs can bring
learning from an individual to a collective or organizational level [24].
Following this framework, the paper examines how these three characteristics manifest
themselves in practice and examines how information on co-benefits influenced the learning
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 5 of 14
process. The methodological approach is based on qualitative research triangulating
different data sources. Seven interviews, carried out with governmental experts from
Mexico and Nigeria, research institutions, and the CCAC Secretariat (see Appendix A),
complement reports and other material published on the organizations’ websites. The main
purpose of these interviews was to gain detailed insight into and expert knowledge on the
integrated policy and learning processes that took place in Mexico and Nigeria. They were
realized using a semi-guided, explorative method, based on a common questionnaire with
open questions giving the interviewee room for personal opinions and detailed descriptions,
e.g., their personal perception of the idea of co-benefits and lessons learned. Mexico and
Nigeria joined the CCAC in 2012; thus, they have worked with the CCAC since the early
foundation of the partnership. Through participating in the CCAC’s SNAP program, they
launched their respective National Action Plans in 2019 and are now working on the
implementation of these policies. The two countries have established a new SLCP planning
process rather than integrated SLCPs into an existing planning process. Even though they
started from a similar point of departure, Mexico and Nigeria chose two different strategies
in the planning process. This research setup not only enriches the analysis but enables a
comparison that may lay the groundwork for building more general assumptions for the
role of co-benefits in learning and policymaking processes.
3. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition Provides the Setting for Using the Co-Benefits
Approach
The CCAC can be seen as the epistemic context that enables learning through the
identification of co-benefits. The CCAC is a voluntary transnational partnership that is
aimed at mitigating global near-term warming through a reduction in SLCPs, namely, black
carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and tropospheric ozone. It was founded in
2012 on a set of 16 ‘win–win’ measures for climate and clean air benefits identified by the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) [
25
,
26
] (Interview 3). Since its inception, co-benefits have been at the core of
CCAC’s mission.
One of the CCAC’s key objectives is to enhance and develop national, regional, and
local action on SLCPs. Therefore, in response to requests for support by its member states,
the coalition initiated the Supporting National Action and Planning (SNAP) initiative
(Interview 4, Interview 5). SNAP has been one of the central thematic activities of the
CCAC, and it is aimed at strengthening countries’ capacities to undertake an integrated
analysis of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by providing a mix of technical assistance and
financial support [
27
]. Figure 1shows an overview of how the CCAC is structured and
where the SNAP initiative fits in.
All projects under the SNAP initiative comprise an institutional strengthening compo-
nent, a national SLCP planning phase, and a phase concentrating on implementation. Taken
together, these three phases constitute the SNAP program. The initiative provides three
different learning opportunities on the multiple benefits of SLCP mitigation: new evidence,
experience sharing with other countries, and influence by the CCAC as an international
actor [
17
]. With the SNAP initiative, the CCAC tries to not only communicate but also prac-
tically implement the idea of multiple benefits or co-benefits into policymaking to unlock
the broader benefits of SLCP mitigation measures. The CCAC uses the idea of co-benefits
both as quantified evidence and as a narrative and communication strategy (Interview 4).
In this sense, it follows what has been proposed by experts as a more opportunity-oriented
and, therefore, more effective strategy for climate change mitigation [
28
]. The role that
co-benefits play in the CCAC can also be seen in two of its core tools: the Multiple Bene-
fits Pathway Framework and the Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning–Integrated
Benefits Calculator (LEAP–IBC).
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 6 of 14
Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
Figure 1. The structure of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). Source: the authors.
All projects under the SNAP initiative comprise an institutional strengthening com-
ponent, a national SLCP planning phase, and a phase concentrating on implementation.
Taken together, these three phases constitute the SNAP program. The initiative provides
three different learning opportunities on the multiple benefits of SLCP mitigation: new
evidence, experience sharing with other countries, and influence by the CCAC as an in-
ternational actor [17]. With the SNAP initiative, the CCAC tries to not only communicate
but also practically implement the idea of multiple benefits or co-benefits into policymak-
ing to unlock the broader benefits of SLCP mitigation measures. The CCAC uses the idea
of co-benefits both as quantified evidence and as a narrative and communication strategy
(Interview 4). In this sense, it follows what has been proposed by experts as a more op-
portunity-oriented and, therefore, more effective strategy for climate change mitigation
[28]. The role that co-benefits play in the CCAC can also be seen in two of its core tools:
the Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework and the Long-Range Energy Alternatives Plan-
ning–Integrated Benefits Calculator (LEAP–IBC).
3.1. The Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework
The Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework is the CCAC’s approach to co-benefits. It
was developed by the CCAC scientific advisory panel in 2017 to support governments in
integrating air quality and climate policies and to design policies that focus on people’s
needs, as well as the global climate and development goals [29]. This approach aims to
provide information on the co-benefits that can be achieved with SLCP mitigation
measures to decision makers. The CCAC’s idea of multiple benefits fits the description of
the third type of usage of co-benefits identified by scholars [6], as the SLCP mitigation
measures are a priori designed to achieve two or more goals simultaneously: climate, air
quality, and development goals. The CCAC refrained from the term co-benefits to not
imply a superiority of climate over other goals; indeed, most of its members prioritize
gains in human health or job creation over global climate change mitigation (Interview 3).
3.2. The Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning—Integrated Benefits Calculator
To translate the idea of multiple or co-benefits into practice and to identify concrete
pathways to achieve these benefits, the CCAC makes use of the LEAP–IBC tool that was
developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). LEAP–IBC comprises two parts:
Figure 1. The structure of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). Source: the authors.
3.1. The Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework
The Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework is the CCAC’s approach to co-benefits. It
was developed by the CCAC scientific advisory panel in 2017 to support governments in
integrating air quality and climate policies and to design policies that focus on people’s
needs, as well as the global climate and development goals [
29
]. This approach aims to
provide information on the co-benefits that can be achieved with SLCP mitigation measures
to decision makers. The CCAC’s idea of multiple benefits fits the description of the third
type of usage of co-benefits identified by scholars [
6
], as the SLCP mitigation measures
are a priori designed to achieve two or more goals simultaneously: climate, air quality,
and development goals. The CCAC refrained from the term co-benefits to not imply a
superiority of climate over other goals; indeed, most of its members prioritize gains in
human health or job creation over global climate change mitigation (Interview 3).
3.2. The Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning—Integrated Benefits Calculator
To translate the idea of multiple or co-benefits into practice and to identify concrete
pathways to achieve these benefits, the CCAC makes use of the LEAP–IBC tool that
was developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). LEAP–IBC comprises two
parts: the Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) and the Integrated Benefits
Calculator (IBC). LEAP is a scenario planning software tool, which is broadly used for
climate change mitigation assessment and energy policy analysis [
30
]. Building on the
emission scenarios from LEAP, the IBC estimates the amount of avoided premature deaths
and crop losses on a national scale [
30
]. The LEAP–IBC supports countries in developing
their own assessments of the co-benefits of SLCP mitigation measures at the national level
(Interview 3). Overall, the LEAP–IBC provides quantified evidence on potential co-benefits,
while the Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework builds up a narrative that links different
policy goals with one another.
4. Mexico—Integrating Air Quality and Climate Change Policies
Mexico is one of the six founding members of the CCAC and has played a key role in
the establishment of the SNAP initiative [
31
]. The SNAP program in Mexico concentrated
on connecting its parallel workstreams on air quality and climate change, as well as
complementing existing GHG inventories with air pollutants inventories (Interview 4,
Interview 5). The process is situated in the epistemic context of the CCAC and led by the
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 7 of 14
National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC), which is supported by CCAC
partners such as the SEI, the Molina Center for Energy and the Environment (MCE2), and
UNEP with technical assistance and funding [31].
In 2013, Mexico concluded the first SNAP phase, institutional strengthening, and
published the “National Planning Document for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants” [
32
].
However, according to a member of INECC’s air quality department, the National Plan-
ning Document was not followed by the recommended actions on SLCPs (Interview 5).
Therefore, during the second SNAP phase, INECC reviewed the National Planning Docu-
ment and used the data for the application of a new tool, the above-described LEAP–IBC.
With the updated knowledge obtained from the LEAP–IBC, INECC evaluated the climate
change mitigation pathways in key sectors including potential reductions in atmospheric
pollutants such as black carbon and greenhouse gases, e.g., methane [33].
This learning process led to an integrated policy output, the “Integrated SLCP Strategy
to Improve Air Quality and Reduce the Impact of Climate Change” published in 2019 [
33
].
The strategy outlines nine mitigation measures in eight key sectors to reduce SLCPs.
It also includes a section on the co-benefits of these measures, e.g., for health, energy
efficiency or air quality, and a communication strategy. The proposal aims at facilitating the
dialogue among decision makers, researchers, the private sector, and the public through
communicating a vision to achieve both climate change and air quality goals through a
reduction in SLCPs. Yet, the strategy is not of a binding legal character and, thus, requires
a connection to other processes that are binding, such as the development of the National
Determined Contributions (NDC), to be implemented. In a third phase, Mexico is now
undertaking this task of implementing the strategy.
Overall, it can be said that, in the Mexican case, the first criterion, problem pressure,
clearly existed and was amplified by information on co-benefits. In Mexico, the political
awareness of the problem of climate change has clearly increased within the last decade.
Evidence for this is that, in 2013, Mexico adopted the “General Law on Climate Change”,
which lifted environmental topics to the top of the political agenda of the government
(Interview 5). With this political milestone, the country acknowledged the urgency of
climate action and created momentum for more ambitious climate policies.
Another indication that not only the threat of climate change in general, but also the
problem of SLCPs specifically gained more attention was the development of Mexico’s
NDC for the Paris Agreement. By including a target to reduce black emissions by 51%
by 2030 in its NDC, Mexico decidedly acknowledged the necessity of including SLCPs
in climate change mitigation plans, such as the aforementioned General Law on Climate
Change [
31
]. Mexico has taken its participation in the CCAC’s SNAP program as an
opportunity to better understand its emission sources and to contribute to policies such as
the national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (Interview 4). The assessment
with LEAP–IBC not only provided evidence and data on problems such as GHG and other
pollutants, but also highlighted the multiple benefits that could be reaped from immediate
action. Hence, the information on co-benefits and co-impacts contributed to convincing
policymakers of the salience of SLCP mitigation and assisted in moving the issue up on the
political agenda.
The second criterion, the political institutional setting and procedures, also played an
important role in the learning process that Mexico underwent, when it developed the SLCPs
strategy. First and foremost, the lack of political power and authority of the responsible
agency INECC represents a challenge to political decisions and the implementation of the
SLCPs strategy. Yet, the updated knowledge on co-benefits also provides a better ground
for more support for the SLCP strategy.
INECC, which became an independent institution under the aforementioned General
Law of Climate Change in 2013, is responsible for the development and coordination of
scientific research projects on climate change mitigation and adaptation to support the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) in the planning and evalu-
ation of public policies [
34
]. The institute is tasked, among other goals, with establishing
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 8 of 14
information on GHG emissions and supporting the development of Mexico’s NDC (In-
terview 5). Its mandate includes the facilitation of technical and scientific assistance from
foreign entities and, therefore, is the focal point of several international organizations, such
as the IPCC and the CCAC [
35
]. Nevertheless, INECC has no political authority and is,
therefore, not in charge of the implementation of policy measures. Policy development and
implementation is the responsibility of SEMARNAT (Interview 5). Scholars have argued
that the institutional setting influences a learning process [
20
]. In order to drive a policy
development process such as that realized under SNAP, experts from SNAP argue that it
is necessary that the institution in charge has convening power over other stakeholders
(Interview 4). This convening power could, for example, be grounded in an institution’s
mandate. INECC’s lack of convening power was especially challenging because, within the
institution in charge, SEMARNAT, there appeared to be little support for the development
of the strategy (Interview 3).
Yet, the information on co-benefits might have had some counterbalancing effect. The
gained information and assessments on co-benefits did support INECC in the communi-
cation and discussions on the SLCP strategy with SEMARNAT and other stakeholders
to get the policy a binding status and to foster its implementation. Subsequent to the
development of the National Strategy on SLCP reduction, INECC developed mitigation im-
plementation pathways through a series of workshops and meetings with stakeholders [
31
].
In these consultations, INECC used the LEAP–IBC evidence of the positive impacts of SLCP
mitigation action to explain the necessity of reduction measures to the stakeholders. A
researcher from INECC reported that, during the discussions with SEMARNAT and other
key stakeholders, the evidence generated by the LEAP–IBC tool appeared to have been
convincing to policymakers (Interview 5). As previously mentioned, the LEAP–IBC and the
idea of multiple benefits were adopted by SEMARNAT in the current NDC update process.
Last but not least, Mexico’s learning process benefitted from the push of several policy
entrepreneurs. Experts from SEI acted as key policy entrepreneurs for the projects realized
under the CCAC’s SNAP initiative. They provided technical and general support to INECC.
This assistance encompasses aiding in the establishment of the planning process, deter-
mining its key steps, identifying and engaging with stakeholders, and holding workshops
and trainings for personnel in INECC and beyond (Interview 3). Both the CCAC staff and
the country partners describe the SEI researchers as the experts on the LEAP–IBC tool and
the planning process who exhibit soft skills in communication (Interview 5, Interview 6).
Furthermore, the SEI experts as policy entrepreneurs possess authoritative knowledge on
the benefits of SLCP mitigation, which is policy-relevant. This increases their influence on
the policy process and increases the opportunities for instrumental learning.
Within Mexico, the air quality team at INECC, who is coordinator of the SNAP pro-
gram, is another important policy entrepreneur. The air quality team coordinated the
work with SEI and developed the “Integrated SLCP Strategy to Improve Air Quality and
Reduce the Impact of Climate Change” [
33
] (Interview 5). Facing the difficult task of con-
vincing air quality and climate change experts to integrate their emission inventories, the
team increasingly made use of the co-benefits idea and LEAP–IBC (Interview 5). With the
LEAP–IBC tool, the air quality experts managed to solve perceived conflicts by uncovering
win–win opportunities.
5. Nigeria—Multistakeholder Engagement through the Lens of Co-Benefits
Nigeria joined the CCAC’s SNAP initiative in June 2015, 3 years after becoming a
member of the CCAC. The planning process is led by the National SLCP Coordination
Office domiciled in the department of climate change at the Federal Ministry of the Envi-
ronment. It is supported by the CCAC secretariat, the UNEP Africa Office, the International
Union of Air Pollution Association (IUAPPA), and SEI, who provide technical assistance
and funding.
The Nigerian SNAP process is characterized overall by a formal two-phase setup with
a clear focus (Interview 3). The first phase, institutional strengthening, created awareness
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 9 of 14
among stakeholders and mobilized their support during the development of the National
Action Plan (NAP) to reduce SLCPs (Interview 7). Subsequently, the NAP was developed
and presented to stakeholders; at the end of this phase, the plan was approved by the
Federal Executive Council of Nigeria in May 2019. It contains 22 mitigation measures that
cut across five key sectors [
36
,
37
]. The Federal Executive Council of Nigeria is chaired
by the Nigerian president and includes all the Nigerian ministries (Interview 7). After its
approval, the SNAP planning process entered its second phase, implementation, which is
still ongoing at the time of writing.
In Nigeria, the development of the NAP is closely tied to several other international
policy processes, the first of which is Nigeria’s NDC. The National SLCP Coordination
Office worked on aligning the measures in the NAP with the country’s NDC to strengthen
their implementation (Interview 7). SEI is tasked with incorporating the measures identified
in the NAP into the countries’ revised NDCs due this year. This activity enabled the appli-
cation for funding under the NDC support program by the UNDP. Furthermore, the SNAP
program supports Nigeria in the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) Readiness Project, which
finances countries’ institutional capacity building under the UNFCCC [
38
] (Interview 7).
Furthermore, the SLCP abatement activities are coordinated with the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) (Interview 7). The adaptability of the NAP to other policy
areas and to international climate change commitments is perceived as crucial, because by
reducing SLCP emissions, the country also advances in the achievement of its national and
international climate goals (Interview 7).
Even though Nigeria makes a rather small contribution to climate change globally (in
2019, 0.23% of global cumulative CO
2
emissions [
39
]), problem pressure is high because
the country is very vulnerable to climate change. Millions of Nigerians are without
access to electricity or air conditioning and are subsequently vulnerable to extreme heat.
Changes in precipitation threaten Nigeria’s largely rain-fed agricultural sector [
40
]. The
problem pressure is higher on climate change adaptation than on mitigation. However, the
international dynamic on climate change increased, and Nigeria committed to contributing
to global mitigation efforts under the Paris Agreement. This development demanded
stronger climate mitigation policies.
In this case, the link between co-impacts of climate and air pollutants and the promise
of co-benefits that could be achieved with the proposed SLCP mitigation measures acted as
an amplifier for the criterion of problem pressure. By quantifying the impacts of SLCPs on
health and agriculture through the LEAP–IBC, the National SLCP Coordination Office was
able to further boost the perception of problem pressure by decision makers. For a small
GHG emitter like Nigeria, co-impacts that benefit the local population, e.g., clean air or
job creation, are of higher priority than GHG reduction (Interview 3). These development
imperatives and the many benefits arising from SLCP reduction add to Nigeria’s motivation
to implement the NAP [36] (Interview 7).
In Nigeria, the political institutional setting and procedures, such as the decision-
making process, benefitted the learning process, which was facilitated by the CCAC’s
approach on co-benefits. First and foremost, the establishment of an authority that was
explicitly responsible for the development and execution of the SLCP action plan was
crucial for the success of this process. Here, a positive narrative on the achievement of
co-benefits served as a tool for the National SLCP Coordination Office to gain the support
from other governmental agencies for the SLCP National Action Plan (Interview 7).
Furthermore, the Nigerian SNAP process is characterized by an extensive multisectoral
consultative process with key stakeholders, which is carried out by the National SLCP
Coordination Team. These stakeholders come from various Ministries, Departments, and
Agencies (MDAs) on the federal and subnational level, while they also include international
development partners, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and
community-based organizations. They were selected to participate in advisory groups
and taskforces on the basis of their mandates in SLCP-emitting sectors (Interview 7).
Overall, the National SLCP Coordination Office interacted with all MDAs and NGOs
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 10 of 14
needed to achieve the multiple benefits from the implementation of the proposed SLCP
mitigation measures (Interview 7). Before the publication of the NAP, stakeholders had
the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures for SLCP reduction in a peer-
review workshop [
37
]. A member of the National SLCP Coordination Office described
this extensive stakeholder involvement as essential for enabling the implementation of the
NAP because all the stakeholders were included in the development of the plan and were
able to make recommendations or comments especially in view of the implementation of
the proposed SLCP mitigation measures (Interview 7).
The National SLCP Coordination Office together with the SEI held workshops with
the affected ministries to emphasize the co-benefits from the SLCP mitigation measures
and ensure the development of robust proposals for the national budget (Interview 3). The
CCAC’s Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework played a key role in these efforts because
it helped demonstrate the interlinkages of climate, air quality, health, agriculture, and
others (Interview 7). Throughout the SNAP program, all MDAs received information
on the CCAC’s ‘multiple benefits’ approach, the specific multiple benefits that can be
achieved through the implementation of the proposed SLCP mitigation measures in the
respective sectors, and how these multiple benefits can assist their efforts in driving policies
(Interview 7). Hence, the identified co-benefits of the proposed SLCP mitigation measures
formed an essential part of the communication with the affected ministries.
The first step in the development of the NAP was building technical capacity and
improving data availability in the Ministry for the Environment and other governmental
agencies (Interview 3). As suggested by Dunlop and Radaelli, the learning process that took
place at that moment was facilitated by conditions that characterize epistemic contexts [
20
].
As the coordination office is also responsible for coordinating the implementation of
the NAP, it had a statuary right of consultation and moderated the policy process [
41
]
(Interview 3, Interview 7). With the National SLCP Planning Office, the Nigerian SNAP
planning process had the necessary institutional conditions for instrumental learning.
The National SLCP Planning Office used the information on potential co-benefits
in addition to climate change mitigation as a vehicle to gain the support of the other
governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of Budget and National Planning and the
office of the Secretary of the Government of the Federation. Furthermore, the Ministry of
Budget and National Planning is responsible for the allocation of the national budget; thus,
its support was crucial to establish the approved NAP as part of the development process
of the country. This ministry’s consent was a precondition to the approval of the policy. The
institutional cooperation was enhanced, because governmental agencies learned that, with
the plan’s measures, they would have the opportunity to achieve other national priorities,
such as health, air quality, and the environment (Interview 7). The quantification of the
co-benefits, e.g., the reduction in health costs, helped to advance the decision-making
process (Interview 6). The mandate of the department of climate change is to reduce GHG
emissions, and, through the co-benefits narrative, the department was able to connect
its mandate to other national priorities, such as health, air quality and the environment
(Interview 7).
In the case of Nigeria, experts from CCAC’s SNAP and SEI, as well as personnel in the
National SLCP Coordination Office, can be seen as policy entrepreneurs, as they advocated
for policy change and actively sought the alignment of science, policy, and the public [
20
].
CCAC SNAP and SEI experts led the process through all phases and participated in all
activities, ranging from technical assessments to stakeholder consultation (Interview 7).
Here, their knowledge and technical support benefitted from the experience with CCAC
SLCP mitigation projects in other countries (Interview 7). At the core of their work stood
the calculation and revealing of co-benefits through the LEAP–IBC tool developed by SEI. It
appears to have strengthened their authority as policy entrepreneurs. Nigeria also further
adopted the CCAC’s Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework and aims to approach the
implementation along that line (Interview 7). CCAC experts requested all relevant MDAs
to assign one desk officer per ministry to work on the SLCP planning process (Interview 3).
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 11 of 14
This clear structure and distribution of responsibility enabled an easy access to the people
who needed to make decisions directly from the start of the program (Interview 3).
Furthermore, the personnel from the Ministry of Environment had a crucial role in the
process. On the one hand, the members of the National SLCP Coordination Office fostered
the translation of learning from the individual level into learning on the organizational level
and provided a clear vision for the development and objectives of the project (Interview 3).
The team worked on getting a national budget assigned to these projects. On the other
hand, the project gained momentum when the responsibility shifted from the ministry’s
air pollution control department to the department for climate change. This shift acted as
a success factor for the NAP development process in Nigeria (Interview 3). In particular,
the role of the director of the climate change department was outstanding. His personal
skills significantly contributed to engaging the other ministries and convincing them to
contribute to the process (Interview 3). Overall, the SLCPS coordination office together
with CCAC’s SNAP initiative and other specialists functioned as the authoritative body of
knowledge and experts [37].
6. Conclusions
Information about co-benefits has triggered and amplified learning processes that led
to integrated policy outputs: national SLCP policy plans in Mexico and Nigeria. Overall, the
co-benefits approach pursued by the CCAC and its SNAP initiative helped to increase the
problem pressure on SLCP reduction and supported the engagement with key stakeholders
in both countries, building a strong motivation to design and implement an integrated
policy. Furthermore, the identification and narrative of co-benefits supported the activities
of policy entrepreneurs decisive for the success of the learning process. The findings of
these case studies suggest that the type of information provided in a policymaking process
influences learning. Co-benefits as a type of information have fostered a positive narrative
that helped convince policymakers of the multiple gains to be expected when implementing
integrative climate mitigation policies.
Even though Mexico and Nigeria faced similar starting points, the processes they
designed under the SNAP initiative fundamentally differed. The Mexican process was very
narrow and concentrated on integrating the know-how from the air quality department
into national climate policy. By including a 51% reduction target for black carbon in its
NDCs, Mexico set a very concrete and measurable goal. In Nigeria, the process was more
all-encompassing. The large-scale stakeholder process benefitted both the development and
the subsequent (ongoing) implementation of the NAP. Undoubtedly, a broader engagement
with key stakeholders would have also generated more support for the national strategy
on SLCPs in Mexico.
The case analyses of this paper show that information obtained through the co-benefits
analysis can be both quantified evidence for environmental, social, and economic impacts
and a powerful narrative with great advocacy potential. As such, it can help to solve a
problem, e.g., SLCP emissions, as well as pursue political purposes, e.g., advancing specific
policy goals such as climate action. Recognizing these appeals of co-benefits can play an
essential role in international climate and environmental policy. The recognition of the
concept’s usefulness in governance is growing; in addition to the CCAC, several other
international initiatives have embedded the concept in their activities, such as the Ambition
to Action project or the COBENEFITS project [4,14].
This research demonstrated that the CCAC and its SNAP initiative provide an epis-
temic context in which a learning process can proliferate. Its tools and its core idea of
connecting SLCP mitigation measures with policy areas such as clean air, health, and
sustainable development through the co-benefits idea are very well received among ex-
perts and country partners alike (Interviews 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). In addition to supporting the
gathering of new evidence and experience sharing, the CCAC itself, as an international
actor, exerts influence on countries to pick up SLCP mitigation efforts and, thus, promotes
learning on SLCP mitigation measures [
42
] (Interview 4). The CCAC’s work has achieved
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 12 of 14
stronger awareness on co-benefits in national and international contexts, which can foster a
large-scale application of the concept in climate and environmental policy. For example,
this could conceivably lead to an increased use of the co-benefits concept in countries’ ac-
tivities under the Paris Agreement, such as the updating of NDCs in 2020/2021. According
to INECC, the vision of multiple benefits in air quality, climate change, and health have
started to permeate the national environmental policy as a result of the SNAP program.
The Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has already started using
some of the new LEAP–IBC features in their NDC updates [
43
] (Interview 5). The idea is to
include co-benefits in the NDC update due this year (Interview 7). At the time of writing,
the SNAP initiative is working on expanding its support for the development of NDCs to
further countries (Interview 6).
This analysis of how the co-benefits concept is applied in political practice has offered
valuable insights into how and for what purposes new evidence is digested in policy
processes. The framework presented in this paper helped to structure the different char-
acteristics of a learning process, and it allows for a more systematic analysis of what
role co-benefits played in a policymaking process. The practical findings from the case
studies can help to further develop the conceptual debate on co-benefits. The explorative
research approach of this study enables the consideration of conditions of learning pro-
cesses that are difficult to quantify, e.g., the impact of policy entrepreneurs or the perceived
problem pressure.
Nevertheless, the use of the co-benefits concept also faces significant limitations. Our
study confirmed that methodological ambiguities, which range from the very broad defini-
tion of the co-benefits concept to technical difficulties when accounting for or monetizing
some co-benefits, represent challenges in the political practice. Furthermore, to function
as an effective driver in policymaking, co-benefits require a strong communication effort,
which requires significant knowledge capacity within the responsible agency and, often,
external support (e.g., through an international experts). Further research on conceptual
implications of co-benefits, as well on the concept’s use in policymaking processes, is
necessary to fill important knowledge gaps.
The learning process about multiple co-benefits of SLCP mitigation under the CCAC
is a special case; nonetheless, its lessons can be useful to designers of public policy and
the scientific community. Future research focusing on the governance implications of the
co-benefits concept would also be valuable for informing policy processes. In addition,
research could draw on insights from other countries that have implemented or are in the
process of implementing the CCAC methodologies in order to gain a broader perspective
on the political practice.
Author Contributions:
Text and analysis, C.M. and C.U. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The datasets generated for this study, such as interview transcripts
and notes, are not publicly available in order to keep individuals’ privacy but are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Kai Wegrich, Kathleen Mar, Seraphine Haeus-
sling, Elsa Lefevre, Chris Malley, Abraham Ortinez, Bala Bappa, Asmau Jibril, Sebastian Helgenberger,
and Harry Fearnehough for their help and curiosity related to this research. We also thank Tilman
Leicht and Mary Jones for constructive feedback.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 13 of 14
Appendix A
Interview 1 was conducted with the research group leader of the COBENEFITS project
at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) on 8 March 2021.
Interview 2 was conducted with a climate policy analyst from the Ambition to Action
(A2A) project at the New Climate Institute on 12 March 2021.
Interview 3 was conducted with a research associate from the Stockholm Environment
Institute (SEI) on 1 April 2021.
Interview 4 was conducted with the former head of the Supporting National Action
Planning (SNAP) initiative by the CCAC on 11 March 2021.
Interview 5 was conducted with the CCAC focal point at the National Institute of
Ecology and Climate Change (INECC) in Mexico on 6 April 2021.
Interview 6 was conducted with the current head of the SNAP initiative by the CCAC
on 11 March 2021.
Interview 7 was conducted with two members of the SLCP Coordination Office in
Nigeria on 1 April 2021.
References
1.
Markandya, A.; Sampedro, J.; Smith, S.J.; Dingenen, R.V.; Pizarro-Irizar, C.; Arto, I.; González-Eguino, M. Health Co-Benefits
from Air Pollution and Mitigation Costs of the Paris Agreement: A Modelling Study. Lancet Planet. Health
2018
,2, e126–e133.
[CrossRef]
2.
Van Vliet, O.; Krey, V.; McCollum, D.; Pachauri, S.; Nagai, Y.; Rao, S.; Riahi, K. Synergies in the Asian Energy System: Climate
Change, Energy Security, Energy Access and Air Pollution. Energy Econ. 2012,34, S470–S480. [CrossRef]
3.
Xie, X.; Weng, Y.; Cai, W. Co-Benefits of CO
2
Mitigation for NOX Emission Reduction: A Research Based on the DICE Model.
Sustainability 2018,10, 1109. [CrossRef]
4.
Rawlins, J. When the Stars Align Investigating the Influence of the Co-Benefits Narrative on Climate Policy Ambition; Ambition to Action,
New Climate Institute: Cologne, Germany, 2019.
5. Karlsson, M.; Alfredsson, E.; Westling, N. Climate Policy Co-Benefits: A Review. Clim. Policy 2020,20, 292–316. [CrossRef]
6.
Mayrhofer, J.P.; Gupta, J. The Science and Politics of Co-Benefits in Climate Policy. Environ. Sci. Policy
2016
,57, 22–30. [CrossRef]
7.
Rietig, K. Reinforcement of Multilevel Governance Dynamics: Creating Momentum for Increasing Ambitions in International
Climate Negotiations. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2014,14. [CrossRef]
8.
IPCC. Annex I: Glossary. In Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C above
Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways; Matthews, J.B.R., Ed.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
9.
Creutzig, F.; He, D. Climate Change Mitigation and Co-Benefits of Feasible Transport Demand Policies in Beijing. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2009,14. [CrossRef]
10. Heffner, G.; Campbell, N. Evaluating the Co-Benefits of Low-Income Energy-Efficiency Programmes; OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2011.
11.
Dubash, N.; Raghunandan, D.; Sant, G.; Sreenivas, A. Indian Climate Change Policy: Exploring a Co-Benefits Based Approach.
Econ. Political Wkly. 2013,48, 47–61.
12.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Herrero, S.T.; Dubash, N.K.; Lecocq, F. Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation. Annual Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2014,39, 549–582. [CrossRef]
13.
Rabe, B.G. Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy; Brookings Institution Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
14.
Helgenberger, S.; Gürtler, K.; Borbonus, S.; Okunlola, A.; Jänicke, M. Mobilizing the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Building
New Alliances–Seizing Opportunities–Raising Climate Ambitions in the New Energy World of Renewables; COBENEFITS IMPULSE.
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS): Potsdam, Germany, 2017.
15.
Bain, P.G.; Milfont, T.L.; Kashima, Y.; Bilewicz, M.; Doron, G.; Garðarsdóttir, R.B.; Gouveia, V.V.; Guan, Y.; Johansson, L.-O.;
Pasquali, C.; et al. Co-Benefits of Addressing Climate Change Can Motivate Action around the World. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2016
,6,
154–157. [CrossRef]
16.
Shaw, C.; Hales, S.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Edwards, R. Health Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Policies in the Transport
Sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014,4, 427–433. [CrossRef]
17.
Dunlop, C.A.; Radaelli, C.M.; Trein, P. Introduction: The Family Tree of Policy Learning. In Learning in Public Policy; Dunlop, C.A.,
Radaelli, C.M., Trein, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–25. ISBN 978-3-319-76209-8.
18. Vagionaki, T.; Trein, P. Learning in Political Analysis. Political Stud. Rev. 2020,18. [CrossRef]
19.
Trein, P. Median Problem Pressure and Policy Learning: An Exploratory Analysis of European Countries. In Learning in Public
Policy; Dunlop, C.A., Radaelli, C.M., Trein, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 243–266.
ISBN 978-3-319-76209-8.
20.
Dunlop, C.A.; Radaelli, C.M. The Lessons of Policy Learning: Types, Triggers, Hindrances and Pathologies. Policy Politics
2018
,46.
[CrossRef]
Atmosphere 2021,12, 1184 14 of 14
21.
Kingdon, J.W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Always Learning, 2nd ed. Pearson New International Edition; Pearson:
Harlow, London, UK, 1995; ISBN 978-1-292-03920-6.
22.
Holzinger, K.; Knill, C.; Sommerer, T. Environmental Policy Convergence: The Impact of International Harmonization, Transna-
tional Communication, and Regulatory Competition. Int. Org. 2008,62, 553–587. [CrossRef]
23.
Bernstein, S.; Cashore, B. Complex Global Governance and Domestic Policies: Four Pathways of Influence. Int. Aff.
2012
,88,
585–604. [CrossRef]
24.
Rietig, K. Leveraging the Power of Learning to Overcome Negotiation Deadlocks in Global Climate Governance and Low Carbon
Transitions. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2019,21, 228–241. [CrossRef]
25.
Shindell, D.; United Nations Environment Programme; World Meteorological Organization; Twenty-sixth Session of the Govern-
ing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum. Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone; United Nations
Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011; ISBN 978-92-807-3141-5.
26.
UNEP; CCAC Secretariat. Time to Act. to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya; CCAC Secretariat: Paris,
France, 2014; ISBN 978-82-7701-130-1.
27.
CCAC SNAP; SEI; IUAPPA; MCE2; IGSD. UNEP Supporting National Action and Planning on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SNAP),
Guidance for National Planning to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants and Promote Integrated Air Pollution and Climate Mitigation
Strategies; CCAC Secretariat: Paris, France, 2019.
28.
Helgenberger, S.; Jänicke, M.; Gürtler, K. Co-benefits of Climate Change Mitigation. In Good Health and Well-Being; Leal Filho,
W., Wall, T., Azeiteiro, U., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Eds.; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–13, ISBN 978-3-319-69627-0.
29.
CCAC. Multiple Benefits Pathway Framework, Maximising Benefits with Integrated Climate Change and Air Quality Actions.
Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/content/multiple-benefits-pathway-framework (accessed on 27 July 2021).
30. Kuylenstierna, J.C.I.; Heaps, C.; Malley, C.M.; Vallack, H.W.; Hicks, W.K. The Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning–Integrated
Benefits Calculator (LEAP-IBC). Factsheet; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2017.
31.
CCAC. Mexico-National Planning on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/
activity/mexico-national-planning-short-lived-climate-pollutants (accessed on 27 July 2021).
32.
MCE2; INECC. Supporting NAtional Planning for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Initiative (SNAP) in Mexico; Molina Center for
Strategic Studies in Energy and the Environment: La Jolla, CA, USA, 2013.
33.
INECC; CCAC; PNUD. Estrategias Integradas En Contaminantes Climáticos de Vida Corta Para Mejorar La Calidad Del Aire y Reducir El
Impacto al Cambio Climático; Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático: Mexico City, Mexico, 2019.
34.
UNFCCC National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change. Available online: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NWPStaging/
Pages/item.aspx?ListItemId=25348&ListUrl=/sites/NWPStaging/Lists/MainDB (accessed on 27 July 2021).
35.
INECC Cooperación Internacional. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/inecc/acciones-y-programas/cooperacion-
internacional-91057 (accessed on 27 July 2021).
36.
CCAC Nigeria-National Planning on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/
activity/nigeria-national-planning-short-lived-climate-pollutants (accessed on 27 July 2021).
37.
Nigeria. Nigeria’s National Action Plan. (NAP) to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants; Federal Ministry of Environment of Nigeria:
Abuja, Nigeria, 2018.
38.
GCF Country Readiness, GCF’s Readiness Programme Provides Resources for Countries to Efficiently Engage with GCF. Available
online: https://www.greenclimate.fund/readiness (accessed on 27 July 2021).
39. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. CO2and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Our World in Data: Oxford, UK, 2020.
40.
Dunne, D. The Carbon Brief Profile: Nigeria. Available online: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-nigeria
(accessed on 27 July 2021).
41.
Mar, K.A.; Unger, C. A Practical Approach to Integrating Climate and Air Quality Policy; IASS Policy Brief: Potsdam, Germany, 2019.
42.
CCAC. Climate and Clean Air Coalition Leaders Launch Action Programme to Address the 1.5
◦
C Challenge; CCAC Secretariat: Paris,
France, 2018.
43.
SEI US LEAP 2020: SEI’s Flagship Tool for Low Emissions Analysis Gets Major Upgrade. Available online: https://www.sei.org/
featured/leap-2020-major-upgrade-for-low-emissions-analysis-tool/ (accessed on 29 April 2021).
