The challenge of data and measurement: evidence-based policy formulation and monitoring
Cities worldwide are entering into renewed dialogues with state/ provincial and national governments to discuss the urban agenda on climate change. Cities are also increasingly engaged in global discussions on climate change. In this context, more rigorous data-driven policy analysis by cities can mean leverage in intergovernmental relations and multi-level governance negotiations.
The vulnerability of cities to climate change is largely underestimated due to lack of standardized data and weak metrics at the city level. There is no established set of city indicators that measures the effects of climate change on cities and assesses those risks, nor is there a comprehensive set of indicators with a common, accepted methodology designed to measure the impact that cities have on climate change and the role that cities play, for example, in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The World Bank has defined indicators as performance measures that aggregate information into a useable form. Indicators provide a useful tool in the prospective sense for policymaking and also in the retrospective sense for assessing policy implementation. Indicators also offer assistance to policymakers by aiding in comparison, evaluation, and prediction.
One cluster of challenges relates to how best to localize measurements on climate change. First, cities are responsible for the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions yet there is still only a very limited set of comparable measurements of climate change at the city level. While national and global measurements have advanced, a credible and globally standardized measurement for how cities impact climate change is needed. Second, and related to this, is the challenge for cities to also establish a common standard for mitigation targets that will help to lessen cities’ impact on climate change. Establishing such targets requires sound research by sector that can help cities to establish benchmarks against which to measure performance in moving towards these targets. Ideally, these benchmarks are established with a globally comparative methodology so that global progress can also be measured in a standard format. A third set of measurement challenges relates to cities and climate change adaptation. Research on risk and vulnerability of cities to climate change needs to inform citizens and policymakers across specified categories of risk at the city level. Data by category of risk and varying degree of vulnerability can then lead to an informed policy agenda on climate adaptation and emergency preparedness.
Climate action planning in Quito, Ecuador
Located in the Central Andes of South America and surrounded by glaciers, Quito is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Between 1939 and 1998, the Andean region saw an increase in average temperatures of 0.11°C per decade against a global increase of 0.06°C per decade (The Government of Ecuador, UNDP, and Ministry of Environment, 2008). One impact associated with this change in temperature is that the Antisana glacier shrank by 23 percent between 1993 and 2005 (Maisincho et al., 2007). This is a critical issue since this glacier and its nearby ecosystems supply a large portion of water to the city’s 2.1 million inhabitants. Climate change also threatens to destroy the paramos ecosystems that regulate the hydrological system of the city’s water basins. Furthermore, climate change is expected to intensify extreme weather events and rainfall in Quito. This is likely to exacerbate landslides and mudslides, stress transportation systems and infrastructure, and endanger indigenous and migrant populations living on the hillsides and slopes (Direccion Metropolitana Ambiental y Fondo Ambiental, 2008).
CLIMATE PLANNING IN QUITO
Planning for climate change in Quito was initiated in late 2006 when the former Mayor, Paco Moncayo, and the Metropolitan Council took the lead in organizing Clima Latino, a climate change conference for the Andean Community of Nations. The October 2007 event was meant to help governments in the region identify appropriate measures for climate mitigation and adaptation (Carmin et al., 2009).
Climate planning became more concrete in January 2007 when Gonzalo Ortiz, a Metropolitan Councillor, gave a presentation to his fellow council members about the need for Quito to take heed of the data on temperature and glacial changes and develop a climate strategy that addressed mitigation and adaptation. With strong support from the Metropolitan Council and the Mayor, Ortiz was empowered to create an Inter-Institutional Commission. In fall 2007, the Inter-Institutional Commission presented its draft climate strategy for Quito to municipal agencies and, a few weeks later, to participants at Clima Latino. They also initiated a metropolitan-wide public consultation process as a means for identifying public concerns and suggestions for the climate strategy. After making revisions based on residents’ priorities and ideas, the Inter-Institutional Commission finalized the Quito Strategy for Climate Change (EQCC) in February 2008.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CLIMATE PLANNING
The Inter-Institutional Commission in charge of the climate strategy hired the environmental NGO ECOLEX to coordinate citizen consultation and organize four workshops across the city in November and December 2007. ECOLEX was asked to engage the local population, particularly vulnerable and historically marginalized communities, as well as key social and community development organizations.
The consultation process resulted in three central concerns being raised by participants. The first concern was the need to improve air quality in Quito. In response, the EQCC includes provisions for improving and extending the public transportation system as a means for decreasing car emissions. Second, was the need to protect homes and property on hillsides from landslides and extreme weather events. The response was to include stipulations in the EQCC for the development of early warning systems and improved emergency preparedness. Further, residents raised concerns about access to potable water, given the shrinking glaciers. This concern is reflected in the EQCC commitments to studying aquifers in Quito’s nearby valleys in order to define a new strategy for using these subterranean resources and working with residents to increase efficiency in water usage.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTING CLIMATE INITIATIVES
The Quito strategy gives civil society actors a central place in the implementation of climate adaptation measures. Local universities and research centers monitor climate vulnerabilities, especially around the Andean glaciers, and inform decision-makers of changes so municipal adaptation measures can be adjusted as necessary. In addition, some local NGOs received funding to train indigenous farmers to improve the management of water resources in their urban agriculture practices, diversify as well as privilege native crops, and replant native tree species in hillside areas. The NGOs also train indigenous leaders to monitor variations in rainfall and flows from local rivers so that municipal staff members receive up-to-date information on changes in water levels in Quito.
CLIMATE ACTION AS BRICOLAGE
The climate planning and implementation processes in Quito reflect a longstanding commitment that public officials have to ensuring that citizens can participate in decision-making and implementation of policies and programs. Many of the issues raised by residents reflected their concerns for health, environmental quality, security, and safety. Officials and staff addressed these concerns by linking elements of the EQCC to existing priorities for development, especially in the areas of water management, land use, and transportation. It is thus possible to envision climate action as a process of bricolage, one through which planners and public officials find creative ways to respond to the needs and concerns of local residents by linking mitigation and adaptation goals to existing municipal priorities and programs.
A second set of challenges for data and improved research on cities and climate change is associated with establishing a globally comparative, standardized set of measures through common methodologies. Climate change is often monitored at global and national levels according to an adopted set of measures globally agreed upon by states. However, similar statistics are rarely collected at the city level and devising indicators on climate change at the city level is proving difficult. Furthermore, when individual cities collect and monitor data on climate change, the information is often collected using methodologies different from other cities and is analyzed and reported on in different ways. This creates further challenges for researchers, planners, and city managers when drawing comparisons across cities globally. The lack of a standardized methodology for devising indicators on climate change at the city level greatly affects the quality of research, planning, and management.
The Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF), first initiated by the World Bank and now managed at the University of Toronto, provides indicators that can assist cities with their mitigation and adaptation efforts in climate change. The GCIF has various indicators, for example, on modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transport and non-motorized transport; waste incineration; wastewater treatment and recycling. Indicators on cities and greenhouse gas emissions are being developed to help create a standard and globally recognized index on cities and greenhouse gases. More research and development of city indicators related to climate change is required. For example, measures to assess mitigation strategies in the energy supply sector, including indicators on renewable energy resources as well as the monitoring of industry practices in cities, need further development. With regard to mitigation strategies in the buildings sector, LEED certification has been a leader in promoting environmentally friendly buildings, and means to assess improvements will help to further transform the building industry.
Indicators on adaptation strategies can help cities assess progress in addressing climate change and areas requiring improvement. With regard to infrastructure, standards and regulations that integrate climate change considerations into design are as yet underdeveloped and measures of performance are not yet identified. In addition, specific land use policies for climate adaptation have not been well addressed. In the health sector, research is required on climate change health impacts necessary for informing local health policy, such as in creating heat-health action plans. Indicators are also needed to monitor climate-sensitive diseases. More generally, the ability of health services to cope with climate change associated health risks is under-researched. The issue of energy demand (particularly in warmer cities), is shown here to be potentially very significant, especially in economic terms, and this should also be a priority (Hunt and Watkiss, 2007). Climate change impact assessments on water scarcity in cities and how cities can best create adaptation responses warrants further research, and the design of impact measures is needed. Generally, in this evolving field of climate change adaption at the city level, much more work is needed on creating standardized methodologies for measurement of impact assessment and on the evaluation of adaptation responses including the economics of adaptation (Hunt and Watkiss, 2007).
In establishing greenhouse gas reduction targets, cities have an important role to play in helping to determine an equitable distribution of reduction targets, which will help to frame mitigation strategies on climate change. Current debates on per capita emissions between inner city residents and suburban residents, between large city residents and smaller city residents, and between wealthy cities and poorer ones raises issues of equity in sharing the burden in meeting reduction targets. However, measures are weak, and an accepted methodology for determining an equitable distribution of high-level greenhouse gas reduction targets has been established (Miller et al., 2009). While it is generally assumed that suburban residents emit significantly more carbon dioxide than inner city residents, it could thus be concluded that it would be more equitable to require suburban communities to shoulder greater burdens for reductions (Miller et al., 2009). However, credible indicators on this issue are still to be refined. For example, while some estimate that suburban dwellers produce up to three times more greenhouse gases per capita than inner city dwellers, recent data (Glaeser and Kahn, 2008) suggest that this dichotomy is not so simple. They report that while per capita emissions indeed rise as you move away from the urban core of Boston, they level off once you are more than ten miles from downtown. Another exception they have found is with respect to Los Angeles, where emissions are actually lower in suburban LA than they are in the central cities of that metropolitan area. Such issues are complicated further by considering the challenges and opportunities of high-growth versus low-growth communities, as well as questions of per capita versus total reduction targets. In Canada, for example, the Province of British Columbia plans to negotiate with local governments with the goal establishing an equitable allocation on a municipality-by-municipality basis.
Finally, a new set of indicators on climate change mitigation are also needed if policymakers are to assess the capacity in communities for greenhouse gas reductions and what costs related changes would generate – physically, socially, and economically – before they can act. Policymakers need to know, for example, how redesign, modified urban form, and rebuilding of the suburbs might overcome car dependency (Miller et al., 2009).
The use of proximity-to-target methodology that quantitatively measures city-scale performance against a core set of goals, while useful in theory for measuring the distance between a city’s targets and current results, providing an empirical foundation for policy benchmarking and providing context for evaluating city performance, is as yet under-developed for climate change indicators at the city level. Nonetheless, it could serve as a powerful tool for steering policy and assessing climate planning and investments in city management.
Advances have been made in environmental performance measures and empirical approaches to assessing global sustain-ability. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) developed by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University has developed 25 indicators across six policy categories that quantitatively measure country-scale performance on a core set of environmental policy goals. Country-level data and analysis on climate change have improved in recent years, but serious gaps still exist at the city level. Quantitative city data on climate change are being developed by cities in some discreet form, often adapted from these broadly accepted national level methods. However, limited availability of discrete and time series data on cities and climate change hamper efforts to diagnose emerging risks and problems, to assess policy options in terms of both mitigation and adaption strategies, and to gauge the effectiveness of city-level programs. Moreover, globally comparative indicator-based knowledge on cities and climate change is underdeveloped. Standardized indicators on climate change that allow cities to compare themselves globally are useful not for purposes of numerical ranking of cities, but for informing policy decision-making through comparative city data that leverage policy and political strategy (McCarney, 2010).
Building and adopting indicators on climate change can promote more open and transparent governance systems in cities and foster increased citizen engagement. In a review on urban sustainability indicators, Mega and Pedersen (1998) suggest that indicators should aid in decision-making at various levels to promote local information, empowerment, and democracy. They should also contribute to making the city a more important instrument for fostering citizen participation. As with indicators of sustainability, those that focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation can ensure the availability of current information about climate performance and improve policy development and implementation.
Evidence-based policymaking is made possible by advances in information technologies. Data-driven decision-making in the government domain via quantitative performance metrics can serve to measure implementation success rates, steer investments, and refine policy choices. The Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF) provides a system for cities to use globally standardized indicators as a tool for informing policymaking through the use of international comparisons (McCarney, 2010). For example, the Secretariat of Finance in Bogota uses indicators from the Global City Indicators Facility to track the city’s investments and to compare performance relative to other cities. By using indicators and such comparisons, the Secretariat of Finance "is able to evaluate and monitor performance on their investments and to benchmark their performance in comparison to other cities."1 Similarly Sao Paulo is demonstrating how governments can use indicators to enhance governance and institute evidence-based policy development city.2 They report: "the media and civil society are often skeptical of government statistics. As an active member in this global initiative (the GCIF) supported by universities and international organizations, the government of Sao Paulo is hoping to regain legitimacy and public confidence in government statistics by creating more transparency on its performance in city services and on improving quality of life. The Government of Sao Paulo recognizes the growing importance of indicators for planning, evaluating and monitoring municipal services. For example, the GCIF indicators were used during the public participation process in preparation of the City’s Master Plan, Agenda 2012. The use of indicators to assist with public policy making in Sao Paulo has opened more effective dialogue between civil society and the local government."
When indicators are well developed and soundly articulated, they can also influence how issues are constructed in the public realm. This is an important lesson related to cities and climate change since information can help to direct behavior in building climate action. Behavioral change can result from publicly accessible information by becoming embedded in the thought and practices, and institutions of users (Innes, 1998). Hezri and Dovers (2006) argue: "as a source of policy change, learning is dependent on the presence of appropriate information with the capacity to change society’s behavior" and "community indicator programs or state-of-the environment reporting are usually aimed at influencing the social construction of the policy problem". City indicators on climate change can therefore enhance understanding of the risks associated with climate change, influence opinion and behavior, shape policy, determine priorities, and thereby impact a city’s relative contribution to global climate change.
Addressing deeper and enduring risks and long-term vulnerabilities in cities
It is important when addressing climate change risk in cities that a broader framework of risks confronting cities be considered. Cities in the twenty-first century are facing unprecedented challenges. The world’s urban population is likely to reach 4.2 billion by 2020, and the urban slum population is expected to increase to 1.4 billion by 2020, meaning one out of every three people living in cities will live in impoverished, over-crowded, and insecure living conditions (McCarney, 2006). Social cohesion, safety, security, and stability are being tested by social exclusion, inequities, and shortfalls in basic services.
The goal of promoting urban climate resilience is to ensure that settlements are vital and viable into the future. This means that climate change mitigation and adaptation are integral to a larger program of environmental, economic, and social sustain-ability. From a social point of view, climate resilience reflects the ability that individuals and groups have to adapt to climatic changes and impacts. The ability to cope is related to the availability of resources, particularly financial assets, political power, social status, and personal and professional networks (Adger, 2006). Some people will have the resources to relocate, retain their livelihoods, and maintain their social networks as situations change; however, others will not have the capacity to adapt. For instance, the elderly and infirm may not have the financial or familial resources needed to relocate to new residences. Those who are socially isolated may have difficulty adjusting to the disruptions around them, and individuals who do not speak the official state language may be unable to fully grasp impending threats. While there are many vulnerable populations in urban areas, the poor are at tremendous risk from climate impacts (Carmin and Zhang, 2009).
Poorer urban households are usually more vulnerable due to weaker structures, less protected city locations and building sites, and lack of resilient infrastructure to withstand climate damages. Similarly, the relation between urban health and climate change risks is particularly heightened under conditions of urban poverty in cities. When basic infrastructure is inadequate, existing conditions of poor sanitation and drainage and impure drinking water are further stressed under conditions of extreme weather events and flooding, leading to the transmission of infectious diseases, which puts poor urban households at high risk. This situation is worsened under circumstances of higher densities in urban areas. Cities in developing countries are disproportionately affected for similar reasons of vulnerability and weak institutional support and infrastructure systems (McCarney, 2006). For example, many developing countries lack the health facilities to deal with large numbers of injured patients, resulting in higher death tolls than in countries better equipped for disasters. Some disasters, which may become more frequent, can paralyze entire cities and regions and permanently destroy their social and economic assets. Leadership in the governance arena is required for the adoption of sound policy on climate resilience in cities, more effective urban management of risks, and more empowered governance at the city level.
"The world Urban Forum III found that severe consequences and threats that cities are now facing as a result of climate change, pressing shortfalls in urban water, sanitation and waste management services, inadequate housing and insecurity of shelter, and the deteriorating quality of air and water in city environments, are being experienced in a context of intense urban growth of cities that increasingly manifests deepening poverty and income inequities, socio-economic exclusion (McCarney, 2006, p.8)."
The adoption, in the year 2000, of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the UN Member States documents the commitment by the international community to support the development of the poorest regions of the world and to assist the most vulnerable. All eight of the MDGs can be directly connected to the theme of vulnerability in the world’s cities. Indeed, it is the world’s cities and the slums within them that are pivotal platforms for the successful achievement of each MDG (McCarney, 2006). Goal 7 – to "Ensure Environmental Sustainability" – sets out three targets: to reverse the loss of environmental resources; improve access to safe drinking water; and improve the lives of slum dwellers. Linking these three targets helps to frame the challenges cities face in addressing climate change in a context of poverty.
Reducing poverty is a core challenge for urban governance and in turn addressing the deficiencies in urban infrastructure and services and sub-standard housing of slum dwellers is central to climate change adaptation. The poor have difficulty obtaining provisions and services and often are at risk of illness and death due to their compromised health and nutritional status. These factors will be heightened as climate conditions change and the poor are exposed to greater heat and humidity, higher incidence of disaster, and changing disease vectors (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001). Urban poor who maintain subsistence lifestyles may find that they are unable to obtain fish from local waterways or fruits and vegetables from open plots as habitats and growing conditions change (Huq et al., 2007).
The situation of poverty in cities worldwide, but in particular in the less-developed regions, must be recognized as a core conditioning factor in addressing climate change and building more climate-resilient cities. This means explicitly recognizing that climate change adaptation must in tandem reduce the vulnerability of the poor in cities. To date, there are few examples of climate adaptation policies and best practices that focus on the needs of the poor or other vulnerable urban populations. However, many development and aid agencies are recommending that climate adaptation activities be aligned with pro-poor development policies. This includes ensuring that the risks to vulnerable populations are minimized and that efforts are made to enhance their capacity for independent action.
The challenge of inclusive governance
Cities worldwide, whether rich or poor, confront the challenge of civic engagement and how to foster an inclusive governance process in their local political environment. Governance invokes more than just political strategy; it demands attention to differentiated social circumstances and needs within the community, to accommodate different cultural values and diversity, and to engage the private sector in the governance platform on climate change.
Social cohesion, safety, security, and stability are being tested by social exclusion, inequities and shortfalls in housing and basic services in cities worldwide. Risks associated with each of these conditions are critical factors in assessing urban risks associated with climate change. Building inclusiveness in local government models is critical to overcoming the core hindrances to social and economic development for citizens.
An inclusive city government that involves long-term residents, international migrants, the poor, marginalized groups, national minorities, and indigenous peoples is fundamental to building safe, livable and climate-resilient cities. The development of new policies and mechanisms for local governance is rooted in strong grassroots participation, citizens and community groups equipped with the understanding of democratic governance to hold local and more senior levels of government accountable, the poorest and most isolated communities’ representation in the public debate. Addressing risk in cities depends on a deeper understanding of the relationship between civil society and the state and the cultural competency of local government.
Inclusiveness is a key means of deepening democracy and promoting citizen involvement and social cohesion. When citizens are effectively engaged in their city’s development, engaged in everyday decisions and in longer-term planning and policy development, they develop a sense of ownership of and loyalty to the city. So too are citizens more apt to embrace an action agenda on climate change if they are given such opportunities to lay claim to that agenda. If people feel more empowered to shape their own destinies in the city while embracing and participating in forging a common agenda such as climate change, then not only is governance being strengthened but that agenda is more likely to gain political traction.
Engaging citizens in the running of their city has taken many different forms. Typical forms of participatory governance include public consultations, public hearings and meetings, appointing citizens to advisory bodies inside municipal authorities, and designing community councils with stakeholder voice at municipal council sessions. These approaches are being extended to climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. While climate initiatives require the commitment and engagement of local governments, projects and programs driven by non-governmental organizations and communities are starting to emerge as important tools for promoting climate readiness. Environmental organizations have long histories of working on issues now defined as climate mitigation related, such as alternative energy, transportation, and green design. Their ongoing work in ecosystem and natural resources management, as well as the concerns many have about environmental justice, now serve as bridges to adaptation. International development and humanitarian aid organizations traditionally work in the areas of health, human services, and disaster and conflict preparedness and response. Many of these organizations are extending their efforts in these domains to account for changing disease vectors, resource conflicts, and water and food scarcity anticipated to result from climate change (Reeve et al., 2008).
In addition, local citizen groups are also serving as drivers of mitigation and adaptation planning. This has been the case, for instance, in the city of Tatabanya, which is about 50 kilometers from Budapest. The residents of this former mining and industrial town formed a Local Climate Group made up of diverse individuals. In addition to working on an integrated mitigation and adaptation strategy, they have implemented a heat and UV alert program, organized teams to assist in the development of a local climate strategy, initiated a call for proposals on energy efficient housing, established emissions reduction targets, and implemented educational and information programs (Moravcsik and Botos, 2007).
Governments are critical actors in advancing mitigation and adaptation. However, an emerging approach being used to support government adaptation initiatives is community-based adaptation (CBA). CBA is based on the premises that vulnerability to the impacts of climate change can be altered by drawing on local capacity and that local communities have the ability to assess conditions and foster change. CBA is distinguished from other participatory and collaborative approaches because it takes climate assessment and adaptation as its primary focus (Jones and Rahman, 2007). While CBA has been attempted at limited scales and often in rural locales, it has the potential to be a valuable asset in an urban climate adaptation toolkit.
Valuable research has been undertaken on recent experiments involving citizen engagement in their city’s climate change development programs. Case studies on worldwide models of urban governance provide a base for considering next best steps in addressing inclusiveness in cities as they inform a deeper awareness of the intersection between civil society and government and improve our understanding of potential new institutions and paths necessary for fostering inclusiveness, empowerment, and engagement in cities globally (McCarney, 1996).
Finally, engaging the private sector in building climate resilient cities is critical if a city’s climate-ready development programs are to gain traction. The private sector plays an important role in urban development and service delivery. Many of the critical urban services that are vulnerable to climate impacts are also privately owned and operated (e.g., water, power, transportation, infrastructure, and occasionally emergency preparedness). In order to be effective, efforts to increase the resilience of these services must include the private sector. Strong cooperation between private operators and public authorities is vital in order to build sustainable cities.
Cities, as centers of commerce, are vulnerable when businesses are adversely affected by climate change. In many countries the private sector is the biggest employer and a significant contributor to national income. The resilience of these businesses is critical to the cities in which they are located. The private sector is likely to be affected by physical exposure to a changing climate, regulatory risks around emissions reduction targets, competition from better-adapted businesses, and by litigation risks or risks to reputation (Llewellyn et al., 2007). Businesses are increasingly aware of the potential impacts of a changing climate on raw materials, supply chains, asset design and performance, markets, products and services, and workforce health and safety (Firth and Colley, 2006).
The insurance industry, for example, has been at the forefront of business activity in assessing climate risks and opportunities, and the sector is already developing risk management processes to minimize costs arising from events driven by climate change. Many insurance companies are actively raising the profile of climate change as a business risk rather than an environmental issue. The Association of British Insurers assessed the financial risks of climate change and warned of the risk of increasing tropical storm activity and its economic impact prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In the United States, the national insurance regulator has adopted a mandatory requirement for insurance companies to disclose the financial risks they face from climate change, as well as actions the companies are taking to respond to those risks. Other sectors likely to be affected by climate change include utilities, oil and gas, mining and metals, pharmaceuticals, building and construction, and real estate, due to their reliance on global supply chains and large fixed assets. The inter-linking of international capital markets means that businesses – and the cities in which they are located – are vulnerable to climate risks globally as well as domestically (Clarke, 2002).
Inventing new norms of practice and reforming institutional procedures in cities can effectively enhance civil society and private sector involvement and create a politics and culture of inclusiveness that is essential in framing strong local governance for effective climate action in cities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the six core governance challenges for cities in confronting climate change can be summarized as: one, a more empowered local governance in both political and fiscal terms; two, addressing jurisdictional boundaries so as to build metropolitan governance systems to better address climate change; three, establishing more effective planning and urban management practices; four, addressing data and measurement through evidence-based policy formulation and monitoring; five, addressing deeper and enduring risks and long-term vulnerabilities in cities, especially related to poverty; and, six, building more inclusive governance. From the discussion of these core challenges, four key ingredients for successful climate action emerge. These are as follows:
1. Effective leadership is critical for overcoming fragmentation across departments and investment sectors when building consensus on the climate change agenda in cities. Strong leadership can overcome individualism and competition across political "turf" and build recognition that more metropolitan-wide collective action is empowering at both a national and international levels. The ability to build consensus and coordination better facilitates investments in infrastructure and amenities that make the city more resilient to climate change. Strong leadership in the affairs of metropolitan governance means not only building consensus, but also aggregating these fragmented interests in a way that builds legitimacy and accountability to stakeholders in the process.
2. Efficient financing is a core requirement for empowered governance in cities. Success to date with efforts to confront climate change challenges in cities has been hampered due to deficient financing tools at local levels of government. The redistribution of responsibilities between different levels of government has not always been sustained by a corresponding allocation of resources or empowerment to adopt adequate financing tools to raise these resources. If these weaknesses are common at the level of individual municipalities, then the problems of raising finance to support the broader metropolitan areas are compounded. Highly fragmented governance arrangements in many metropolitan areas makes efficient financing for area-wide climate mitigation and adaptation strategies a difficult and on-going challenge. Metropolitan authorities often lack adequate resources for governing and face difficulties in raising new sources. Without a clear, permanent, and sufficient financial mechanism it is indeed quite difficult to implement the principle of territorial solidarity in the metropolitan area in order to redress social and economic inequalities in search of more climate-resilient cities.
3. Inclusive citizen participation. Different models of city governance can encompass different forms and degrees of citizen participation. Participation of citizens in decision-making and in the allocation of resources is challenging when principles of transparency and democracy require that the mechanisms of participation are accessible, easy to understand, and utilize simple forms of representation. Community-based adaptation strategies on climate change, transparency in climate change data on cities, and more inclusive local government planning help to build stronger involvement of urban citizens on the climate change agenda.
4. Jurisdictional coordination is one of the most pressing challenges common to cities worldwide. This challenge takes two forms: multi-level jurisdictional coordination of services vertically across multiple levels of government and inter-jurisdictional coordination of services horizontally across the metropolitan area. In the case of the former, the inter-governmental relations involved in the governance of cities are often in flux, with extensive and complex decentralization processes in motion in many countries worldwide. Multiple tiers of government and various levels of state agencies are involved in the climate change agenda and vertical coordination is often weak or non-existent. In the case of the latter, existing governing institutions are often horizontally fragmented, uncoordinated, and in many cases ad hoc when it comes to climate change strategy, due to multiple juris-dictional and electoral boundaries that span the territories of vast metropolitan areas. Coordination is fundamental not only in basic sectoral areas such as land, transport, energy, emergency preparedness, and related fiscal and funding solutions, but in addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion through innovative mechanisms of inter-territorial solidarity. Land-use planning across these broad urban regions is a key criterion for effective governance in the arena of climate change strategies. Territorial and spatial strategies are central in addressing climate change risks and building effective mitigation and adaptation strategies. Land use planning in peri-urban areas and the broader hinterland of cities and transport and related infrastructure planning at urban and regional levels that emphasize territorial or spatial strategies are key functions of metropolitan institutions. Managing transportation in large metropolitan areas is essential for the advancement of the climate change agenda and addressing greenhouse gas emission targets. Transportation investments and services, however, are often implemented, financed, managed, and regulated by different governing institutions and levels of government. Coordination of these processes relies on complex inter-governmental policy networks and organizational management.
