Cities and Climate Change

Harnessing the Potential for Local ActionNagoya Symposium, 16 February 2009Jan Corfee-Morlot, www.oecd.org/env/cc/citiesjan.corfee-morlot@oecd.orgAcknowledgements: P.J. Teasdale, I. Cochran, S. Hallegatte

OECD: the Economics of Climate Change & OECD: the Economics of Climate Change & Environmental SustainabilityEnvironmental Sustainability

Economic Aspects of Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Adaptation to

OECD OECD Environmental Environmental

OutlookOutlookCities & ClimateCities & Climate

Change Change Climate ChangeClimate Change

Outlook Outlook gg

2

Cities and Climate ChangeCities and Climate Change

1 Policy context & why1. Policy context & why cities?

2 Multilevel governance2. Multilevel governance, climate change and cities

3 I i th t lb3. Improving the toolbox:i. GHG inventoriesii. Impact assessment & its

role in policymaking4. Concluding points

Policy ContextThe pace of climate change is quickeningquickeningLimiting climate change requires radical change, reversing GHG trendsradical change, reversing GHG trendsPolicy gap is widening

Policy ContextPolicy ContextWhy is progress slow?Diverse & diffuse emission sources:• Pre-existing policy and

institutions• Vested interests• Incentives for mal-adaptation & p

mal-mitigationReforming institutions and gpolicies takes time

Policy challenge

Climate policy is about choicePro-active climate protection will be driven by engagement and through communication: citizens, cities and nations

• What type of economic growth?• What does a low carbon pathway look like &

how do we get there?g• How to build resilience to inevitable climate

change?• What balance between now vs later?What balance between now vs later? • Between adaptation and mitigation?

Why worry about cities?• By 2010, urban population will exceed the  rural share 

and continue to grow in share worldwideg

Source: Based on data from the United Nations (2006) as cited in OECD 2008.

Why cities?Cities are motors of economic growth and drive  ti l inational economies

Urban economic activity is more energy & emission intensive than is rural activityintensive than is rural activity

Land, population and GDP of selected cities as a share of the country total

Cit B l B d t Li b M i Cit N Y k P i S l S dCity Brussels Budapest Lisbon Mexico City New York Paris Seoul Sydney

Percent of land 2 3 0 8 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 6 0 02Percent of land 2.3 0.8 3.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.02

Percent of population 10 25.3 26.3 23.9 7.8 21.2 25 24.4

Percent of GDP 44.4 45.6 38 26.7 8.5 27.9 48.6 23.5Sources: Land: Klein Goldewijk and Van Drecht, 2006; population: UN, 2006; and GDP: OECD, 2006.

2. Multilevel governance perspectives

Unique advantages of local action

Localising climate change • more effective communication and engagement

with decision-makersCo-benefits of mitigation largest in cities –raises motivation, lowers net costs of action Cities as “laboratories” of social change• Testing new ideas, policy approachesg , p y pp

Key opportunities embedded in local government functions & roles

V b ti l t t b t i l dVary by national context but may include:• Zoning, and land use planning & management• Transport planning, congestion management

including public transport• Infrastructure development: plan, commission &

implement local and regional roads, flood protection local parks water etcprotection, local parks, water, etc.

What are some of the barriers to effective action in cities?to effective action in cities?

National frameworks may not devolve power & y pauthority to citiesStrong transnational (horizontal) linking but vertical integration between cities & nations is underdevelopedFunding is constrainedCities lack tools, expertise & capacity

3. Developing the toolbox3. Developing the toolbox

Developing a toolbox: 1) inventories as a monitoring tool1) inventories as a monitoring tool

Standardised accounting for emissions gacross cities will make local efforts “real”

• Bring rigour and structure into efforts to measure g gprogress & compare

• Raise visibility, transparency of achievementsLi k i l i• Link up to national strategies

Access GHG emission trading & off-set k & fi imarkets & financing

The inventory challenge: reliable performance dataperformance data

National scaleNational scale• one set of harmonised methods (IPCC)• Standard reporting framework (FCCC AIP)• Standard reporting framework (FCCC, AIP)

At local scale - a number of competing t l f hi h ffi i llprotocols, none of which officially

sanctioned internationally:ICLEI US CCAR Th Cli t R i t• ICLEI – US, CCAR – The Climate Registry

• Bilan Carbone• C-40• C-40• Clinton Climate Initiative

Unresolved technical issuesUnresolved technical issues

Limit comparability and reliabilty of city-Limit comparability and reliabilty of cityscale inventories:• Different definitions of the city• Different definitions of the city• Different years reported• Different boundaries of the inventory• Different boundaries of the inventory• Different definitions of source categories &

other methodological issuesother methodological issues

Incommensurate city data even with same protocol: North American examples

Towards harmonised reporting and bl it d t ?comparable city data?

The ICLEI CCP campaign, The Climate R i tRegistryThe Climate Alliance’s Local Governments Climate PartnershipClimate Partnership

Still no national government or international ownershipinternational ownership

Multi-year effort to develop & put in place a standard GHG protocola standard GHG protocol

Developing a toolbox (2): regional science & impact

assessmentassessmentLocal science-policy dialogue to assess impacts, understand & manage risk• Cities will benefit from an

iterative, deliberative process –&engaging scientists & decision-

makers -- to focus what climate change means in thechange means in the local/regional context

City Studies: A Review

London

New York/Boston

Mumbai/Kochi

AthensVancouver

Shanghai

Toronto Paris

Lisbon Rome

AthensVancouverDhakaSeattle

(Los Angeles)California

Tokyo

C t

Manila

California

Mexicocity

Cotonou

S P l /Alexandria

Singapore

Melbourne/Sydney/ Brisbane

Key

Capetown

Sao Paulo/Rio de Janerio

Sante Fe/Chascomús

Caracas Wellington

20

Quantitative impactsQualitative/partial/historic

Source: Alistair Hunt and Paul Watkiss (2007). OECD. ENV/EPOC/GSP(2007)10

Assessing local impacts of high & l b f t t f i tilow carbon futures: cost of inaction

Assessing local impacts through sub-ti l i li hnational science-policy exchange

H li t h ill ff tHow climate change will affect cities?Dialogue about choices - what are the implications of: • Mitigation: high vs low emission

pathways, urban form?• Adaptation: climate resilient urban

development?• How much will this cost & how to

pay for it?

Assessing local impactsAssessing local impactsVariety of institutional delivery models• Examples: IRI, UK CIP, ViTeCC, Ouranos

National/sub-national public funding, p galso private funding for regional scienceBuild on local/regional research gcapacity, universities, institutesSuppliers and customers of information pp– interaction is valuable

Communicating risk & the use of i C lif i limage: California examples

4. Conclusions?4. Conclusions?

Conclusion: what policy priorities at urban scale?

R i i d t diRaise awareness, increase understandingDevelop a common vision: a low-carbon, climate resilient cityresilient cityEstablish goals & instruments to bring about changechange• Emphasis market instruments, subsidy reform & other

policy reformsp y• Public private partnerships

Develop common metrics to assess progressp p gWork closely with regional & national governments

Policy, Actors & Politics Intertwined: Local-National

Policy ActionAction

• Persuasion• Sanction &Sanction &

incentives• Regulation

PoliticsInterests

Multiple Actors

Regulation

Visit our website:Visit our website:

www oecd org/envwww.oecd.org/envwww.oecd.org/env/cc/cities

Thank you!

Assessing local impacts: institutional models vary

Assessing local impacts: institutional models vary