Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.4.1.4 Interactions and processes for multilevel governance ====

<div id="section-4-4-1-4-block-1"></div>

Literature has proposed multilevel governance in climate change as an enabler for systemic transformation and effective governance, as the concept is thought to allow for combining decisions across levels and sectors and across institutional types at the same level (Romero-Lankao et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r877|877]]</sup> , with multilevel reinforcement and the mobilization of economic interests at different levels of governance (Jänicke and Quitzow, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r878|878]]</sup> . These governance mechanisms are based on accountability and transparency rules and participation and coordination across and within these levels.

A study of 29 European countries showed that the rapid adoption and diffusion of adaptation policymaking is largely driven by internal factors, at the national and sub-national levels (Massey et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r879|879]]</sup> . An assessment of national-level adaptation in 117 countries (Berrang-Ford et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r880|880]]</sup> found good governance to be the one of the strongest predictors of national adaptation policy. An analysis of the climate responses of 200 large and medium-sized cities across eleven European countries found that factors such as membership of climate networks, population size, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and adaptive capacity act as drivers of mitigation and adaptation plans (Reckien et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r881|881]]</sup> .

Adaptation policy has seen growth in some areas (Massey et al., 2014; Lesnikowski et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r882|882]]</sup> , although efforts to track adaptation progress are constrained by an absence of data sources on adaptation (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; Ford and Berrang-Ford, 2016; Magnan, 2016; Magnan and Ribera, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r883|883]]</sup> . Many developing countries have made progress in formulating national policies, plans and strategies on responding to climate change. The NDCs have been identified as one such institutional mechanism (Cross-Chapter Box 11 in this Chapter) (Magnan et al., 2015; Kato and Ellis, 2016; Peters et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r884|884]]</sup> .

To overcome barriers to policy implementation, local conflicts of interest or vested interests, strong leadership and agency is needed by political leaders. As shown by the Covenant of Mayors initiative (Box 4.1), political leaders with a vision for the future of the local community can succeed in reducing GHG emissions, when they are supported by civil society (Rivas et al., 2015; Croci et al., 2017; Kona et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r885|885]]</sup> . Any political vision would need to be translated into an action plan, which could include elements describing policies and measures needed to achieve transition, the human and financial resources needed, milestones, and appropriate measurement and verification processes (Azevedo and Leal, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r886|886]]</sup> . Discussing the plan with stakeholders and civil society, including citizens and allowing for participation for minorities, and having them provide input and endorse it, has been found to increase the likelihood of success (Rivas et al., 2015; Wamsler, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r887|887]]</sup> . However, as described by Nightingale (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r888|888]]</sup> and Green (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r889|889]]</sup> , struggles over natural resources and adaptation governance both at the national and community levels would also need to be addressed ‘in politically unstable contexts, where power and politics shape adaptation outcomes’.

<div id="section-4-4-1-4-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-4.1-multilevel-governance-in-the-eu-covenant-of-mayors-example-of-the-provincia-di-foggia"></span>