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

==== 6.4.1.5 Trans-national Municipal Networks ====

<div id="h3-42-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Since the late 1990s, transnational municipal networks (TMNs) have increased awareness of climate change and served as a bridge for cities to access critical financial resources from private and philanthropic sources ( [[#Rashidi--2018|Rashidi and Patt, 2018]] ; [[#Fünfgeld--2015|Fünfgeld, 2015]] ). Recently, TMNs have taken on more programmatic functions, working with cities to strategise, plan and incrementally improve their organisation functions in the face of climate change. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities program (2014–2019) provided a two-year salary for a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) to be situated in a municipal authority to bridge silos, incentivise change and develop development strategies for resilience ( [[#Bellinson--2019|Bellinson and Chu, 2019]] ; [[#Spaans--2017|Spaans and Waterhout, 2017]] ). In these cases, external actors have enabled broad organisation change, resource mobilisation pathways and alternative forms of agenda-setting in cities (Chu, 2018; [[#Hakelberg--2014|Hakelberg, 2014]] ) (see also Case Study 6.2, Semarang).

A range of TMNs also support and encourage cities and settlements to plan and implement adaptation actions. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability has developed protocols and implemented projects for member cities. The C40 Climate Leadership Group has facilitated the coordination of both local governments and business actors at a global scale ( [[#Gordon--2020|Gordon, 2020]] ). Policy coordination has been central to the signatories of the Covenant of Mayors (Domorenok et al., 2020). Such networks can encourage the sharing of information about appropriate practices between urban areas; contribute to goal setting; support experimentation and development of new policy instruments; enhance stakeholder engagement; institutionalise climate agendas; and encourage policy integration across governance levels and sectors ( [[#Bellinson--2019|Bellinson and Chu, 2019]] ; Busch, Bendlin and Fenton, 2018; [[#Fünfgeld--2015|Fünfgeld, 2015]] ; [[#Busch--2015|Busch, 2015]] ; [[#Papin--2019|Papin, 2019]] ; [[#Rashidi--2018|Rashidi and Patt, 2018]] ). However, participation in TMNs is biased toward cities in the Global North (Bansard, Pattberg and Widerberg, 2017; [[#Haupt--2019|Haupt and Coppola, 2019]] ). A recent comparative study of 337 cities found out that cities that participation in TNMs are more likely to take adaptation action and that being part of multiple networks leads to higher levels of adaptation planning (Heikkinen et al., 2020).

<div id="box-6.5" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 6.5 | Building Water Resilience in Urban Areas through Community Action and Activism'''
<div id="h2-36-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

In Bengaluru, India, communities have traditionally managed a network of water tanks of immense ecological importance. However, in the last half-century, urban development has increasingly threatened this blue network ( [[#Unnikrishnan--2015|Unnikrishnan and Nagendra, 2015]] ). Today’s Bengaluru depends on long-distance water transfers that create political conflict and a dense network of private boreholes that are depleting the city’s water resources. The restoration of the existing community managed water tanks network offers a more sustainable and socially just alternative for managing water resources.

Unnikrishnan et al. (2018) have documented how the colonial and postcolonial history of water management in Bengaluru shapes the water infrastructure and provision systems today. Water access inequalities can be traced to the patterns of spatial development developed by colonial policies. Records from the sixth century onwards show how city rulers invested in an interconnected, community managed network of tanks and open wells, regularly recharged through harvested rainwater. The water system was changed at the end of the 18th century, as first the colonial state, then the post-independence government of Karnataka took responsibility for water management. Ideas of modernist planning influenced the development of new water infrastructure and piped networks, including the first piped infrastructure, bringing water from sources 30 km away, including the Hesaraghatta and then the TG Halli reservoirs. The old network of tanks gradually deteriorated as tanks became disused, polluted or built over. More prolonged and costly water transfers took place in the post-colonial period, delivering water from the Cauvery River in a massive engineering project with a high energetic cost and enmeshed in inter-state conflicts over water use ( [[#Castán%20Broto--2019|Castán Broto and Sudhira, 2019]] ). Scarcity is still a problem in Bengaluru. The citizen response has been an activist movement to reclaim the city’s tanks, accompanied by a plea to reconsider current water uses within the city, including actions to protect and rejuvenate water wells ( [[#Nagendra--2016|Nagendra, 2016]] ). Unnikrishnan et al. (2018) document different actions led by citizen-led collectives, including projects for lake rejuvenation, filtering technologies to treat sewage, recovering the value of lakes through a share of photos and art projects, and involvement of local knowledge in-tank restoration. Those efforts suggest an untapped potential to deliver adaptive green spaces through the recovery of Bengaluru’s tanks.

<div id="6.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="institutional-change-to-deliver-adaptation-in-cities-settlements-and-infrastructure"></span>