Introduction
Diverse types of multilevel governance (MLG) coordination mechanisms for climate action (including adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage) have emerged in the last three decades across the world. There is no “one-size-fits-all” model; rather, some trends and general approaches are emerging. Many mechanisms support horizontal coordination across government ministries, departments, and agencies at the national level (also known as a “cross-sectoral” or “whole of government” approach). Coordination mechanisms can also include non-state actors, such as civil society organizations, businesses, academia, and/or Indigenous Peoples (also known as “stakeholder engagement” or “whole-of-society” approach). They may also include multiscale coordination between national governments and subnational governments, such as state, provincial, or municipal authorities (also known as “vertical integration”).
In the context of the national adaptation plan (NAP) process, MLG coordination mechanisms play diverse roles. Some of the responsibilities that have been identified fall under the four dimensions of the iterative adaptation cycle (IAC): supporting climate risk assessments; planning of adaptation measures; implementation of actions; monitoring, evaluation, and learning. The coordination mechanisms identified support some or all the dimensions of the IAC. Furthermore, these mechanisms facilitate coordination across policy sectors and among diverse actors at different governance levels, and/or provide advice to decision-makers involved in NAP processes. The roles and level of authority of these mechanisms (for example, decision-making or advisory roles) are determined by their legal or administrative mandate, which derives from national laws, executive decrees (e.g., presidential or ministerial), and public policies.
The purpose of this inventory is to provide an overview of the type of multilevel coordination mechanism that countries are using to advance their NAP processes. This information is targeted at national teams supporting the NAP process across policy sectors, subnational decision-makers at different governance levels, and other non-state actors relevant to the NAP process. It aims to inform them on the existing mechanisms that countries are putting in place, providing entry points to support the NAP process. A secondary goal is to inform international development practitioners about countries’ existing coordination mechanisms to avoid duplication of efforts supporting NAPs.
In the context of this inventory, MLG coordination mechanisms are defined as permanent institutional and procedural arrangements that support collaboration and alignment across policy sectors (agriculture, heath, water, etc.) and among actors (government, CSOs, businesses), as well as across different levels of government (national, sub-national, and local). These mechanisms can play a crucial role to make climate adaptation efforts coherent, effective, and inclusive (Luna Rodríguez et al., 2023).
These mechanisms may change over time (e.g., due to evolving countries’ policy priorities, changes in administration, and/or review and updates of already submitted NAPs). This database will be updated over time to include relevant changes in countries’ coordination mechanisms.
Methodology
For this analysis, we explored MLG coordination mechanisms that fulfilled the following selection criteria: 1) they are permanent mechanisms that are present in developing countries that have submitted their NAP document to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and 2) they are officially mandated by national sovereign governments as coordination and/or advisory bodies on climate change policy. This analysis presents a non-comprehensive set of mechanisms, as further mechanisms exist but were not included in this review, and as we have not analyzed mechanisms that do not fulfill the above criteria (for example, project-specific mechanisms). Out of the 60 countries that have submitted their NAP document to the UNFCCC as of March 31, 2025, 51 countries have set up a permanent multilevel coordination mechanism in support of the NAP process that fulfill our selection criteria. For nine countries, no evidence was found in NAP documents and related policy documents (i.e., national policies, decrees, and laws) of the existence of such coordination mechanisms.
Finally, the national-level mandate that created the MLG coordination mechanisms analyzed emerges from a variety of administrative and legal instruments, such as national policy documents (e.g., climate change policy instruments such as NAPs), executive decrees (presidential or ministerial orders), or legislative decisions (such as climate change laws).
Types of Multilevel Governance Coordination Mechanisms for Climate Action
Once identified, the different MLG mechanisms were classified along two dimensions—the scope of their responsibilities (type of mechanism) and the range of actors involved (type of coordination). A more detailed description of these classifications is provided below.
-
1. Based on the scope of responsibilities, two types of mechanisms were identified in the NAP documents and related information sources:
- climate-exclusive: permanent mechanisms created specifically to coordinate and deal with climate change issues (adaptation, mitigation, and/or loss and damage). For instance, climate change councils, commissions, or committees mandated by law, decree, or other national policy instrument.
- non-climate-exclusive: permanent coordination mechanisms that were created to coordinate both climate change-related and non-climate change-related policy issues. For example, sustainability councils, environmental commissions, or disaster risk reduction committees.
-
2. Based on who is involved, three types of national-level coordination mechanisms were identified through the analysis of the NAP documents and related information sources.
- vertical (cross-scale): involves national, subnational, and local levels of government.
- horizontal (cross-sectoral): brings together representatives from the state (as a sovereign actor, including executive, judiciary, and legislative branches). For example, government ministries, departments, and/or agencies at the same level of jurisdiction.
- multi-actor (multistakeholder): enables coordination between at least one representative from the state and any non-state actor, such as civil society organizations (CSOs)/non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, Indigenous Peoples, academia, and/or international cooperation organizations.
When the mechanisms include representatives from more than one dimension (i.e., horizontal, vertical, or multi-actor), they are also categorized as multidimensional.
- multidimensional: simultaneously integrates organizations representing more than one policy sector, governance level, or actor (Luna Rodriguez, 2019).
In practice, many of the coordination mechanisms identified include representatives from more than one category. For example, they may simultaneously include representatives from different government ministries /agencies and non-state actors, and/or subnational level governments, as shown in the country examples of this analysis.