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

== Box 4.1: Multilevel Governance in the EU Covenant of Mayors: Example of the Provincia di Foggia ==

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

Since 2005, cities have emerged as a locus of institutional and governance climate innovation (Melica et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r890|890]]</sup> and are driving responses to climate change (Roberts, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r891|891]]</sup> . Many cities have adopted more ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets than countries (Kona et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r892|892]]</sup> , with an overall commitment of GHG emission reduction targets by 2020 of 27%, almost 7 percentage points higher than the minimum target for 2020 (Kona et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r893|893]]</sup> . The Covenant of Mayors (CoM) is an initiative in which municipalities voluntarily commit to CO <sub>2</sub> emission reduction. The participation of small municipalities has been facilitated by the development and testing of a new multilevel governance model involving Covenant Territorial Coordinators (CTCs), i.e., provinces and regions, which commit to providing strategic guidance and financial and technical support to municipalities in their territories. Results from the 315 monitoring inventories submitted show an achievement of 23% reduction in emissions (compared to an average year 2005) for more than half of the cities under a CTC schema (Kona et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r894|894]]</sup> .

The Province of Foggia, acting as a CTC, gave support to 36 municipalities to participate in the CoM and to prepare Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs). The Province developed a common approach to prepare SEAPs, provided data to compile municipal emission inventories (Bertoldi et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r895|895]]</sup> and guided the signatory to identify an appropriate combination of measures to curb GHG emissions. The local Chamber of Commerce also had a key role in the implementation of these projects by the municipalities (Lombardi et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r896|896]]</sup> . The joint action by the province and the municipalities in collaboration with the local business community could be seen as an example of multilevel governance (Lombardi et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r897|897]]</sup> .

Researchers have investigated local forms of collaboration within local government, with the active involvement of citizens and stakeholders, and acknowledge that public acceptance is key to the successful implementation of policies (Larsen and Gunnarsson-Östling, 2009; Musall and Kuik, 2011; Pollak et al., 2011; Christoforidis et al., 2013; Pasimeni et al., 2014; Lee and Painter, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r898|898]]</sup> . Achieving ambitious targets would need leadership, enhanced multilevel governance, vision and widespread participation in transformative change (Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Rosenzweig et al., 2015; Castán Broto, 2017; Fazey et al., 2017; Wamsler, 2017; Romero-Lankao et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r899|899]]</sup> . The Chapter 5, Section 5.6.4 case studies of climate-resilient development pathways, at state and community scales, show that participation, social learning and iterative decision-making are governance features of strategies that deliver mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development in a fair and equitable manner. Another insight is the finding that incremental voluntary changes are amplified through community networking, polycentric governance (Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r900|900]]</sup> , partnerships, and long-term change to governance systems at multiple levels (Stevenson and Dryzek, 2014; Lövbrand et al., 2017; Pichler et al., 2017; Termeer et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r901|901]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-4-1-4-block-3"></div>

Multilevel governance includes adaptation across local, regional, and national scales (Adger et al., 2005) <sup>[[#fn:r902|902]]</sup> . The whole-of-government approach to understanding and influencing climate change policy design and implementation puts analytical emphasis on how different levels of government and different types of actors (e.g., public and private) can constrain or support local adaptive capacity (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011) <sup>[[#fn:r903|903]]</sup> , including the role of the civil society. National governments, for example, have been associated with enhancing adaptive capacity through building awareness of climate impacts, encouraging economic growth, providing incentives, establishing legislative frameworks conducive to adaptation, and communicating climate change information (Berrang-Ford et al., 2014; Massey et al., 2014; Austin et al., 2015; Henstra, 2016; Massey and Huitema, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r904|904]]</sup> . Local governments, on the other hand, are responsible for delivering basic services and utilities to the urban population, and protecting their integrity from the impacts of extreme weather (Austin et al., 2015; Cloutier et al., 2015; Nalau et al., 2015; Araos et al., 2016b) <sup>[[#fn:r905|905]]</sup> . National policies and transnational governance could be seen as complementary, rather than competitors, and strong national policies favour transnational engagement of sub- and non-state actors (Andonova et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r906|906]]</sup> . Local initiatives are complementary with higher level policies and can be integrated in the multilevel governance system (Fuhr et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r907|907]]</sup> .

A multilevel approach considers that adaptation planning is affected by scale mismatches between the local manifestation of climate impacts and the diverse scales at which the problem is driven (Shi et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r908|908]]</sup> . Multilevel approaches may be relevant in low-income countries where limited financial resources and human capabilities within local governments often lead to greater dependency on national governments and other (donor) organizations, to strengthen adaptation responses (Donner et al., 2016; Adenle et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r909|909]]</sup> . National governments or international organizations may motivate urban adaptation externally through broad policy directives or projects by international donors. Municipal governments on the other hand work within the city to spur progress on adaptation. Individual political leadership in municipal government, for example, has been cited as a factor driving the adaptation policies of early adapters in Quito, Ecuador, and Durban, and South Africa (Anguelovski et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r910|910]]</sup> , and for adaptation more generally (Smith et al., 2009) <sup>[[#fn:r911|911]]</sup> . Adaptation pathways can help identify maladaptive actions (Juhola et al., 2016; Magnan et al., 2016; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r912|912]]</sup> and encourage social learning approaches across multiple levels of stakeholders in sectors such as marine biodiversity and water supply (Bosomworth et al., 2015; Butler et al., 2015; van der Brugge and Roosjen, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r913|913]]</sup> .

Box 4.2 exemplifies how multilevel governance has been used for watershed management in different basins, given the impacts on water sources (Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2).

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

<span id="box-4.2-watershed-management-in-a-1.5c-world"></span>