This week, as we wrap up Module 1, we would like to encourage you to start thinking about cases that have been shared on this learning space, and considering if any of these cases have given you any ideas or inspiration in terms of how you might address local challenges. Perhaps your involvement in the Learning Alliance has led you to have discussions with others outside of the site? Perhaps you have been particularly interested in the experiences of particular individuals on the site and you have started thinking about potential collaborations? If you have, then now might be a great time to move on those thoughts. Private networking can be done through the Member’s Directory on the Networking Page, but of course we would love to hear about anything that you are looking to follow-up on as a result of the ELLA discussions.
Module 1 has provided us with a fantastic opportunity to start to get to know each other and understand the realities in cities across our diverse nations. Together we have reviewed good practices from some Latin American cities, and participants have shared similar good practices from Africa and Asia. It has been encouraging to hear about these success stories, and has been interesting to consider why the majority of participants in cities are struggling to improve climate resilience.
It has been very interesting to see how many common barriers there are to improving climate resilience in our cities. We had discussions about city level climate plans and policies, city level climate vulnerability and risk mapping and the integration of climate considerations in land-use planning “ the majority of participants explained that a lack of such instruments came as result of the following barriers:
1) Inaction of city governments: this includes lack of putting plans into action, political short-termism stops investments being made in long-term issues such as climate change, lack of enforcement of plans/policies, lack of control over urban expansion
2) Climate change is not considered a priority due to the myriad of other development issues
3) Climate change is seen as a rural issue
4) Lack of climate change awareness at the community level
5) Lack of capacity at the local level and external consultants often lack the local perspective
6) Lack of funding
The Latin American cases that were shared at the beginning of the weekly discussions did give examples of cities that had overcome some these barriers. The city of Quito, Ecuador, linked existing policies and practices to the city climate change plan, engaging officials by sharing data to expose how climate change affects their particular department- meaning that specific climate change funds and positions need not be created. In the case of Cartagena, Colombia, we saw that technical and advisory staff in the Mayor’s office were capacitated to understand the impacts of climate change – this enabled greater continuity at the municipal government level. The mapping exercises in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo showed the reality of climate risks at the local city level, showing that climate change is not only a real threat to rural areas. The case of Montevideo, Uruguay, showed a successful participatory approach that facilitated a transition from scientific and technical analysis toward a strategic climate action plan. In Quito the creation of an inter-institutional climate change committee enabled the support and cooperation of players from various sectors and government departments.
Throughout the discussions participants converged on the idea that the solutions to these problems might include the following: (however, only a few successful examples were shared)
a) Holistic approach: integrating climate change considerations into all plans and policies for development at the city level
b) Education and awareness raising to improve the understanding of local populations
c) Community level involvement in planning and decision making helps communities to understand the need to change settlement patterns
d) The involvement of local actors ensures that local knowledge is called up: qualitative data should be valued
e) Utilisation of multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral groups in planning to improve climate resilience
f) Public-private funding mechanisms
Attached is a summary of the four discussions that we have had on the Learning Alliance so far. This week we would like to invite you to:
- Share any additional practical examples of solutions to the common barriers
- Share how the ELLA cases and examples from other participants have sparked your interest – this could be in the form of a thought, a conversation with a colleague, more detailed research into any of the cases, a plan to collaborate with a particular participant, or a plan of action, to name but a few...
If you haven’t already done so, please log in to add a contribution http://ella.practicalaction.org/learning-alliances-6
Best wishes,
Charlotte Heffer
Moderator
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities
Module 1 has provided us with a fantastic opportunity to start to get to know each other and understand the realities in cities across our diverse nations. Together we have reviewed good practices from some Latin American cities, and participants have shared similar good practices from Africa and Asia. It has been encouraging to hear about these success stories, and has been interesting to consider why the majority of participants in cities are struggling to improve climate resilience.
It has been very interesting to see how many common barriers there are to improving climate resilience in our cities. We had discussions about city level climate plans and policies, city level climate vulnerability and risk mapping and the integration of climate considerations in land-use planning “ the majority of participants explained that a lack of such instruments came as result of the following barriers:
1) Inaction of city governments: this includes lack of putting plans into action, political short-termism stops investments being made in long-term issues such as climate change, lack of enforcement of plans/policies, lack of control over urban expansion
2) Climate change is not considered a priority due to the myriad of other development issues
3) Climate change is seen as a rural issue
4) Lack of climate change awareness at the community level
5) Lack of capacity at the local level and external consultants often lack the local perspective
6) Lack of funding
The Latin American cases that were shared at the beginning of the weekly discussions did give examples of cities that had overcome some these barriers. The city of Quito, Ecuador, linked existing policies and practices to the city climate change plan, engaging officials by sharing data to expose how climate change affects their particular department- meaning that specific climate change funds and positions need not be created. In the case of Cartagena, Colombia, we saw that technical and advisory staff in the Mayor’s office were capacitated to understand the impacts of climate change – this enabled greater continuity at the municipal government level. The mapping exercises in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo showed the reality of climate risks at the local city level, showing that climate change is not only a real threat to rural areas. The case of Montevideo, Uruguay, showed a successful participatory approach that facilitated a transition from scientific and technical analysis toward a strategic climate action plan. In Quito the creation of an inter-institutional climate change committee enabled the support and cooperation of players from various sectors and government departments.
Throughout the discussions participants converged on the idea that the solutions to these problems might include the following: (however, only a few successful examples were shared)
a) Holistic approach: integrating climate change considerations into all plans and policies for development at the city level
b) Education and awareness raising to improve the understanding of local populations
c) Community level involvement in planning and decision making helps communities to understand the need to change settlement patterns
d) The involvement of local actors ensures that local knowledge is called up: qualitative data should be valued
e) Utilisation of multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral groups in planning to improve climate resilience
f) Public-private funding mechanisms
Attached is a summary of the four discussions that we have had on the Learning Alliance so far. This week we would like to invite you to:
- Share any additional practical examples of solutions to the common barriers
- Share how the ELLA cases and examples from other participants have sparked your interest – this could be in the form of a thought, a conversation with a colleague, more detailed research into any of the cases, a plan to collaborate with a particular participant, or a plan of action, to name but a few...
If you haven’t already done so, please log in to add a contribution http://ella.practicalaction.org/learning-alliances-6
Best wishes,
Charlotte Heffer
Moderator
ELLA Learning Alliance on Climate Resilient Cities
Summaries of Discussions from Module 1 
Thanks for sharing the case of Ho Chi Minh city. 10 fold reduction in water retention capacity is quite significant and most of these have been because of filling up of the city's lakes and water channels. The new project envisages a 'comprehensive environmental protection' strategy for a changing climate. Does this include restoration of the lakes and channels? I am interested to learn more about this as this presents a case of ecosystem-based approach to urban resilience. Secondly, how has been the participation of the public and other stakeholders in this 'research dialogue'? And how is the existing planning strategy or the overall institutional framework adapting to these recommendations and the time frame for it?
Regards,
Jyotiraj