Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.4.1.4 Partnerships for Adaptation ====

<div id="h3-41-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Multi-level governance remains an influential paradigm that recognises government institutions’ influence at different scales and the diversification of actors intervening in public issues from the private sector and civil society ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Establishing linkages between multiple organisations can help deliver coordinated action. Multi-level governance includes mechanisms for multiple actors to engage in local adaptation strategies through collaborative processes of planning, learning, experimentation, capacity building, construction of coalitions and communication channels ( [[#Barton--2013|Barton, 2013]] ; [[#Jaglin--2013|Jaglin, 2013]] ; Reed et al., 2015; Restemeyer, van den Brink and Woltjer, 2017; Melica et al., 2018). Many of these studies directly focus on institutional arrangements that facilitate interaction between communities and civil society, experts, government representatives, firms and international organisations. Box 6.5 demonstrates the decisive role that community activists can play in building resilience over long periods.

Institutional fragmentation reduces the capacity to deliver adaptation ( [[#Den%20Uyl--2018|Den Uyl and Russel, 2018]] ) Multi-level governance shows a commitment to tackling fragmented and complex policy issues through collaboration between national governments and non-state actors, as explained in the 2030 Development Agenda, especially SDG17 (‘Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development’). Multi-level governance is particularly important to deliver adaptation at the metropolitan scale, that require coordinating actions across different institutions in inter-municipal institutions ( [[#Lundqvist--2016|Lundqvist, 2016]] ). Gaps in knowledge remain regarding the effectiveness of multi-level governance actions in different contexts and the extent to which multi-level governance strategies transfer the brunt of responsibility for adaptation action to less-resourced local governments (Hale et al., 2021).

Public–private partnerships are increasingly relevant for collaborative development of urban adaptation (Klein et al., 2018). Partnerships can deliver infrastructure, coordinate policy and support learning. The main limitation of partnerships is scale, as partnership action is usually limited to discrete projects or objectives. Partnerships tend to be linked to reactive (rather than proactive) adaptation projects and the deviation of objectives away from adaptation concerns (Harman, Taylor and Lane, 2015). Partnerships can support capacity building in public and private organisations and facilitate networking efforts that extend beyond the private sector to communities and NGOs (Bauer and Steurer, 2014; Castán Broto et al., 2015). Public actors can benefit from the private sector’s innovation and implementation capacity, and businesses can de-risk investments. Still, partnerships can also strengthen the ideologies of growth and managerialism within the operations of the local government (Taylor et al., 2012). Reconciling divergent norms and routines within public and private organisations remains one of the challenges to establishing successful public–private partnerships for adaptation ( [[#Lund--2018|Lund, 2018]] ). Administrative and political culture influences the nature of interactions between public and private sector actors in urban adaptation agendas (Bauer and Steurer, 2014), with negative consequences such as the imposition of vertical chains of commands on horizontal collaborations, and the need to formalise contractual relations ( [[#Klein--2018|Klein and Juhola, 2018]] ).

Local authorities are an important enabling actor that can guide the private sector and communities to take responsibility for creating policy and regulatory environments that encourage private sector participation aligned with the SDGs’ equity and ecological sustainability principles ( ''high confidence'' ). For example, Frantzeskaki et al. (2014) report a port relocation project in the Netherlands where sustainability principles drove private sector participation. Klein et al. (2017) cite examples from two cities—Helsinki and Copenhagen, where local authorities have shifted adaptation responsibilities to private actors through regulation and public problem ownership. In Mombasa, private companies provide green infrastructure to match local government requirements, in what has frequently been cited as an example of NBS ( [[#Kithiia--2010|Kithiia and Dowling, 2010]] ; [[#Kitha--2011|Kitha and Lyth, 2011]] ).

<div id="6.4.1.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="trans-national-municipal-networks"></span>