Background Document
Global Environment Facility
Sustainable Cities Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP):
A common platform to help build sustainable cities1
for
Sustainable Cities IAP Consultative Meeting
(version as of 25 August 2014)
This background document is intended to support the discussions at the GEF Sustainable Cities
IAP Consultative Meeting, held on 27 and 28 August 2014. The aim of the meeting is to seek the
guidance of key stakeholders and potential beneficiaries on what the Sustainable Cities IAP will
do, and how the IAP may be managed.
Proposed guiding questions:
1
1.
The proposed common platform for the IAP consists of a sustainability plan and a set
of tools with common metrics. How can we strengthen the IAP design to foster the
generation of global environmental benefits while building on existing initiatives?
What suggestions do you have on the key attributes of the proposed common
platform?
2.
We have so far identified four tools. How are these four tools likely to promote the
intended goals of the IAP? What additional tools could be considered by the IAP?
What set of common metrics can be brought to use by all participating cities?
3.
The selection criteria for pilot cities/urban areas are presented. What suggestions do
you have to further refine them?
Based on a report prepared for GEF by Dan Hoornweg, University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Mila
Freire, International Consultant, Urban Economics. Reviews by Warren Evans and Christopher Kennedy.
Supporting working papers by D. Hoornweg, K. Pope, M. Hosseini, and A. Behdadi.
Reviewed and revised by Naoko Ishii, Gustavo Fonseca, Chizuru Aoki, David Rodgers, and Xiaomei Tan, GEF
Secretariat.
Summary
Context
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)’s ambitious GEF2020 strategy presents a bold use of
leveraged investments and innovative and better-integrated cross-cutting projects and programs
aimed at addressing the root causes of environmental degradation and climate change.
The GEF is poised to play a significant role by convening key partners, promoting synergies, and
catalyzing greater and better-targeted investment across public and private sectors. As a key
component to deliver the objectives of the GEF2020 strategy, the GEF Council approved a
strategy for the next four years (GEF-6) that includes development of an Integrated Approach
Pilot (IAP) for sustainable cities.
No area provides more opportunity to address the world’s environmental degradation and work
toward sustained global environmental benefits than cities and urbanization. The task is
enormous and urgent; cities drive our economies, are responsible for significant environmental
degradation, and also experience impacts from such degradation. In just one generation, cities
worldwide are to double in size, and without a concerted effort will triple resource consumption
and corresponding pollution. The good news is that cities are also able to harness their energy
and human potential to understand the impending problems, develop efficient solutions, and
attract sufficient resources to embark on a path of sustainability.
Objectives of GEF Sustainable Cities IAP
To demonstrate innovative models of sustainable urban management through integrated urban
policy and strategy support and piloting of high impact options, and to foster replication of
sustainable urban management models through partnership and sharing of lessons learned.
Common Platform
The IAP will support a common platform, which consists of sustainability plans and a set of
tools that underpin the plan development and implementation with common metrics. The
common platform catalyzes the numerous partners now working on urban issues and supports
the pilot with a few key cities willing to enter into an iterative, ‘organic’ network program, that
at its core is designed to bring about the enormous potential cities possess to reduce local and
global environmental degradation, while developing robust, resilient and equitable economies
and communities. The key attributes of the common platform are summarized in Table S1.

The sustainability plan is a clear, rolling plan that provides in one place, an agreed and
vetted assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the selected pilot city/urban
area. The sustainability plan is to be consistent with existing ones spearheaded by
partners, including ICLEI Local Agenda 21, Cities Alliance City Development Strategy,
and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Urban
Infrastructure Initiative, and will also address global environmental concerns. The
sustainability plan would have a short-term horizon consistent with GEF’s 2020 strategy
as well as a longer-term horizon to 2050.
1

The tools are used to help cities develop and implement the sustainability plans. It is
important for the IAP to agree and use the common set of tools, so that diagnosis that the
participating cities and partners arrive to is agreed by all, and can be compared across
cities and over time. Four tools are currently identified as follows, with additional tools
that may be considered as they become available:
1. Common metrics and a consistent terminology, such as those included in ISO
37120 and the C40-ICLEI-WRI greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory;
2. Quantifying energy and material flows through urban metabolism assessments –
resource efficient cities;
3. Identification of a hierarchy of urban management that prioritizes service
provision, increasing resilience and decreasing emissions and environmental
impact;
4. Identification of local and global system boundaries, consistent with the tenets of
sustainable development and key limits such as climate change and biodiversity.
There is a need among partners and participating cities to agree to use the same set of
tools and metrics.
Table S1: Key Attributes of Sustainable Cities IAP Common Platform















Based on a planning horizon to 2050, with a milestone of 2020
Starts with a common public sustainability planning document (similar to a consolidated Local Agenda 21, City
Development Strategies (CDS), and other relevant ones)
Pilot cities should use a common suite of urban diagnostic tools (described in following sections)
Broad partner support
Within two years, consolidate existing city plans
Within several months of selection, propose at least one long-term ‘sustainability investment’ (i.e., those
investments by partner Agency or local/national entity in excess of $10 million that show high sustainability)
With own resources, agree to improve, with measured progress, one activity within the urban management
hierarchy
Support programmatic efforts across the urban agglomeration (metropolitan area)
Enter into long-term partnership with relevant local academic institutions
Agree to share lessons learned to regional and global city comparators
Communicate program plan and progress with residents and businesses
Facilitate partnerships; cities to assume leadership, but to avail themselves of potential national and
international support
Provide regular feedback to GEF and other partners on their efficacy, suggest areas for improvement
Participate where practicable in the ‘global community of cities’ (e.g. relevant memberships, national and
international influence)
Publish the sustainability plan, and regularly update, on local website or alternate media
Benefit to Cities
Cities/urban areas participating in the pilot would receive support to define baselines and
develop medium- and long- term sustainability scenarios that impact emissions and resilience;
provide population, economic and material flows projections; maximize the benefits of
integration; enhance a city’s ability to attract technological and financial support; and use
common metrics and terminology to help cities learn from each other and increase the pace of
2
replication. GEF financial support would be directed to programs and activities identified
through participant’s sustainability plan as high priority in both the short-term and long-term.
Benefit to Partners
The common platform with sustainability plan is intended to help publicize and where practical,
coordinate the many, and growing, urban support initiatives in pilot cities/urban areas. Through a
shared objective –helping cities move toward sustainable development – all partners can enhance
a city’s ability to integrate initiatives and measure progress against a common baseline. Working
better together results in refined requirements for cities, reduce overlap, and better defined and
monitored priorities.
GEF Comparative Advantages
The Sustainable Cities IAP and its common platform maximize GEF’s comparative advantage in
sustainable cities, namely by:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Embracing a global environment perspective to better understand how cities are key
drivers of environmental degradation and how to reduce their impacts while
enhancing social and economic development;
Catalyzing, integrating and bringing together a broad array of urban-focused partners
as well as strategic financing;
Harnessing support from national governments for the development of a common
platform to support cities;
Applying long-standing experience with support to urban infrastructure projects,
global agreements and accords, and related management capacity initiatives.
Selection Criteria
Cities/urban areas would be selected based on the quality of proposed activities, proposed
methodology, guarantee of rigor in analysis, and capacity to lead and mentor. Pilot cities are to
be selected from those projected to have a population greater than 5 million by 2050. The
proposed criteria include the following:
1. Local and national level commitment to integrated urban management and policy, and
articulation of urbanization challenges in relevant national sustainable development
strategies and policies.
2. Experiences with managing key sectors and causes of local and global environmental
isues with demonstrated results, and existence of coordination mechanisms.
3. Characterization of current and projected urbanization trends and their impacts on the
global environment in the city/urban area as well as the country.
4. Relevance of the proposed city within the context of the global urbanization challenges
and within the context of global enivonmental conditions (i.e., why is it important to
address this particular city from the global urbanization perspective and from the global
environmental perspective).
5. Commitment to partnerships, with potential for leveraging, coordination, and synergy.
3
6. Replication potential within country and globally.
7. Agreement to monitor, track, and report on a harmonized set of performance indicators
(metrics) on regular intervals as agreed. Provision of current city indicators with the
proposal to show existing data and informations is available, credible, and readily shared.
8. Likelihood of progress by the 2018 review.
9. Availability of exisiting and projected baseline support, with provision of credible overall
financing plans for activities identified in city proposal.
10. Diversity of selected cities/urban areas, including regional distribution and status of
urbanization (addressing current cities versus managing for the future).
4
1. GEF Integrated Approach to Sustainable Cities
Introduction
Many agencies and corporations are emerging or expanding their city-specific initiatives.
Examples include C40, Rockefeller Resilient Cities Program, World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Urban Infrastructure Initiative, Siemens Green City Index,
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Earth Hour Capital Award, the World Council on City Data
(WCCD) and their newly published ISO 37120.2 More should be expected. ICLEI has been a
strong advocate for member cities. The Local Agenda 21, modeled after National Agenda 21 as
recommended at the Rio summit, provided comprehensive plans for cities to work toward
sustainable development. Similarly, the Cities Alliance provides a compelling starting point for
city-specific sustainability through its long-standing City Development Strategy process.
The role of international finance institutions (IFIs) and bilateral agencies in cities is considerable.
These institutions likely have more than 3,000 active city-based investment projects around the
world at any given time. A typical larger city in a Part-2 member country can easily have more
than 100 active international assistance projects supporting key aspects of infrastructure and
social development. For example, a recent review of the solid waste sector in Dar es Salaam
provides a powerful example for the need to consolidate approaches by external agencies. More
than 40 international organizations support solid waste activities in the city and there are more
than nine solid waste master plans, many with differing objectives. In addition the city has at
least 26 reports and unsolicited proposals for energy from waste facilities.3
With this crowded landscape of city-specific initiatives, a clear need has emerged to help cities
and national governments integrate efforts and also move towards more holistic management of
global environmental issues.
Unique opportunity for GEF and to catalyze partnerships
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has a unique catalytic opportunity to work with cities,
the agencies that support cities, and their national governments. GEF’s assistance would not
duplicate existing efforts, but rather help integrate efforts under the common goal of sustainable
development. Helping the world’s cities move toward greater sustainability is one the most
impactful ways to address local and global environmental threats. The GEF can help define that
road map, specific to individual cities as well as collectively at a global scale, and help measure
and share genuine progress.
At the recent GEF Assembly, a new GEF 2020 Strategy was endorsed with the goal of protecting
and enhancing natural capital while ensuring the sustainable use of ecosystems and resources.
The recent GEF replenishment supported the GEF2020 Strategy, and called for the development
ISO 37120 – Sustainable Development of Communities: Indicators for city services and quality of life is the first ISO 37120
international standard on city indicators. The first ISO standard was developed using the Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF)
framework and input from the ISO Technical Committee on Sustainable Development of Communities (ISO/TC 268).
3 Field review notes and personal communication Bob Breeze, waste management consultant.
2
5
of Integrated Approach Pilots (IAPs). Initial support funding of $55 million was allocated for
establishment of a Sustainable Cities4 IAP.
Cities are a logical area for GEF support for the following reasons:






Cities address all mega-trends;
Massive urbanization is taking place, therefore action now yields significant benefits;
The majority of the world’s resources are consumed in cities;
Cities may have capacity to quickly scale and replicate activities;
‘Greening the grassroots’ is occurring successfully in cities;
Effective support to cities demands broad-based and mutually supportive partnerships.
Changes in the global environmental benefits and ecosystem services manifest quickly and
intensely in the day-to-day lives of urban residents. By the nature of their pragmatism and desire
to implement workable solutions, cities are powerful allies for GEF. Cities, and their leaders, are
aware of deteriorating ecosystems, both in their localities and internationally. Many cities
realize it is in their best interest to act now. The GEF has a unique opportunity–arguably
responsibility–to work with cities as this powerful stakeholder is mobilized through concrete and
quantified action in an integrated, prioritized and locally relevant manner to address global
environmental concerns.
What will GEF Sustainable Cities IAP do?
The goal of the Sustainable Cities IAP is to foster development of sustainable cities that are
cleaner, more efficient, resilient, and prosperous with global environmental benefits.
Specifically, the Sustainable Cities IAP will establish a common platform for city support and
broad partnership on integrated solutions around water, energy, transport and other issues
important to the global environment, as recommended by GEF’s Scientific and Technical
Advisory Panel (STAP).5 The common platform will consist of two key elements. The first is the
support to cities/urban areas for their sustainability plans. In pilot cities, the management and
implementation of a sustainability plan will be facilitated through baseline projects and programs
aimed at addressing the root causes of environmental degradation and climate change.
The second element of the common platform consists of four broad urban management tools that
underpin the development and implementation of the sustainability plans:
(i)
(ii)
Common metrics and a consistent terminology through applications of tools such as
ISO 37120 and the C40-ICLEI-WRI greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory;
Quantifying energy and material flows through urban metabolism assessments –
resource efficient cities;
Sustainable cities are defined as: ‘urban communities committed to improving the well-being of their current and future
residents, while integrating economic, environmental and social considerations’ (World Bank, 2013), and sustainable cities are
resilient, efficient, equitable, well-managed and socially vibrant. Sustainable cities increase opportunity while reducing
ecosystem impacts and negative externalities such as congestion and crime.
5 STAP. Sustainable Urbanization Policy Brief: Proliferation of urban centres, their impact on the world’s environment and the
potential role of the GEF.
4
6
(iii)
(iv)
Identification of a hierarchy of urban management that prioritizes service provision,
increasing resilience and decreasing emissions and environmental impact;
Identification of local and global system boundaries, consistent with the tenets of
sustainable development and key limits such as climate change and biodiversity.
Additional tools may be considered as they become available. There is a need among partners
and participating cities to agree to use the same set of tools, along with common metrics.
The common platform initially serves a catalytic function bringing together many potential
partners; a harmonized approach for cities to propose and monitor sustainability; links to relevant
support; and a means to encourage robust partnerships between local governments (contiguous in
a metropolitan area) and their respective regional and national governments. The common
platform also provides the means to better mobilize private sector support and provide ongoing
communications with citizens. The GEF would work with participating cities/urban areas, their
national governments, and serve an integrating function for various initiatives supported in most
cities. The common platform and the key elements are explained in the following sections.
The Sustainable Cities IAP investment represents a very modest input to city investment
requirements.6 Even with ambitious leveraging and strong support of partner international
finance institutions, financial assistance envisaged through this program only represents a very
minor share of cities’ needs. The Sustainable Cities IAP is therefore not about providing largescale financial support, but rather its strength is to provide a safe (and supported) space for cities
to experiment, reflect, share, and establish a sensible and rigorous framework of analysis.
Overall, the Sustainable Cities IAP seeks to demonstrate innovative models of sustainable urban
management through integrated urban policy and strategy support and piloting of high impact
options, and to foster replication of sustainable urban management models through partnership
and sharing of lessons learned.
6
Cities and their associated agencies are likely to spend at least $80 trillion in infrastructure and service delivery by 2050.
7
2. A Common Platform for Sustainable Cities IAP
The common platform of the GEF Sustainable Cities IAP comprises a coordinating sustainability
plan underpinned by four common tools. To serve cities well, external partners need to follow a
common blueprint that includes the city’s aspirations and agreement to measure progress. As
more partners emerge and as more emphasis on urbanization and cities accrues throughout the
world, common platforms will increase in value. The strength of the platform can readily be
measured by the degree of city ‘ownership’ and commitment to specific targets and willingness
to accurately measure progress toward these targets. The key attributes of the common platform
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Attributes of the GEF Sustainable Cities Common Platform















Based on a planning horizon to 2050, with a milestone of 2020
Starts with a common public sustainability planning document (similar to a consolidated Local Agenda 21, City
Development Strategies (CDS), and other relevant ones)
Pilot cities should use a common suite of urban diagnostic tools (described in following sections)
Broad partner support
Within two years, consolidate existing city plans
Within several months of selection, propose at least one long-term ‘sustainability investment’ (i.e., those
investments by partner Agency or local/national in excess of $10 million that show high sustainability)
With own resources, agree to improve, with measured progress, one activity within the urban management
hierarchy
Support programmatic efforts across the urban agglomeration (metropolitan area)
Enter into long-term partnership with relevant local academic institutions
Agree to share lessons learned to regional and global city comparators
Communicate program plan and progress with residents and businesses
Facilitate partnerships; cities to assume leadership, but to avail themselves of potential national and
international support
Provide regular feedback to GEF and other partners on their efficacy, suggest areas for improvement
Participate where practicable in the ‘global community of cities’ (e.g. relevant memberships, national and
international influence)
Publish the sustainability plan, and regularly update, on local website or alternate media
Sustainability Plan
The sustainability plan is a clear, rolling plan that provides in one place, an agreed and vetted
assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the selected pilot city/urban area.
They are likened to a common ‘song sheet’ that all partners and senior levels of government sing
to. They would include key investments and estimations of where the city is on hierarchy of
urban management.
ICLEI’s Local Agenda 21 has been a powerful planning document, as are City Alliance’s City
Development Strategies and WBCSD’s ‘Issues’ and ‘Solutions Landscapes’. These documents
have similar objectives: bring together numerous planning documents, common datasets, and (as
much as possible) agreed-to regional approaches. These documents should exist in every
participating city, and organization supporting the city should ensure that their assistance
program (details and objectives) are included in a summary annex. Much of this common
8
planning document consolidates and summarizes existing programs, metrics, and infrastructure
planning.
The documents should have a shorter-term approach, focused on 2020, and longer-term, focused
on 2050. Relevant IFIs, NGOs, international agencies should facilitate and/or support the
preparation and regular updating of this common planning and communications document.
Ideally every five years or so the documents should be updated, published and made publically
available.
Tools of City Building, Underpinning the Common Platform
Building cities well requires a good set of tools, and clear and agreed-to blueprints, or plans.
The world’s city builders are about to undertake the most ambitious and important task ever
faced by humanity: Building sustainable cities for some seven billion residents by 2050.7
Assessing short- and long-term aspects of a city requires different tools. For the long-term,
getting large-scale civil works right in a city requires effective planning, such as how to
accommodate expected populations over the next decade(s) as well as enhancing interaction
between people –their mobility and connectivity, their accommodation, their basic services, their
density of living and working. The more short-term, day-to-day aspects require adequate energy
supply, material supply, waste removal, and constant connectivity and communications.
The proposed common platform measures and strengthens the two main aspects of cities; longlived infrastructure, and day-to-day management, economy, transactions and metabolism. The
four tools to be applied are described below.
Tool #1: Common metrics and consistent terminology
Common metrics and consistent terminology will be sought through applications of existing and
emerging tools. For instance, the newly established World Council on City Data (WCCD), the
evolution of Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF), is working with a reporting group of almost
300 cities in 80 countries, including 19 WCCD Foundation cities that are piloting the new
international standard on city indicators, ISO 37120.8 Also, C40, ICLEI, and WRI are working
with more than 50 pilot cities as they introduce the community-based GHG-emissions inventory.
C40 has several sub-groups of cities working on activities such as cities and deltas and lowcarbon city growth.
Tool #2: Quantifying energy and material flows through urban metabolism assessments:
Establishing procedures by which cities determine energy and material flows on a regular basis is
critical to a sustainability plan. This tool is used to quantify energy and material flows of cities,
or urban metabolism, whose importance to sustainable development has been recognized. GHG
inventories for cities are based on energy and material flows, though the data is not always
explicitly given. Urban metabolism also provides measures of water consumption, waste and
pollutant production, as well as the influence of cities on nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.
By 2050 the world’s urban population is expected to increase to more than 6 billion. In 35 years the world’s current cities need
to be rehabilitated and largely re-built, while at the same time new urban infrastructure and management systems need to be
constructed for another 2.5 billion residents.
8 WCCD Pilot Foundation Cities include: Amman, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, Bogota, Dubai, Guadalajara, Haiphong, Helsinki,
Johannesburg, London, Makati, Minna, Makkah, Rotterdam, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, and Toronto.
7
9
Emerging methods of determining the impacts of cities on global biodiversity loss also rely upon
energy and material flow data (Singh and Kennedy, 2014). Standardized approaches to
quantifying urban metabolism have been developed (Kennedy and Hoornweg, 2012) and have
been tested by the World Bank. Energy and material flows for the world's 27 megacities, as of
2010, have recently been determined (Kennedy et al, 2014) and studies of other cities and
metropolitan regions are increasing. The methodology is further described in Annex 1.
Tool #3: Identification of a hierarchy of urban management that prioritizes service provision,
increasing resilience and decreasing emissions and environmental impact:
Solid waste managers often adhere to the hierarchy of waste management: reduce, reuse, recycle,
and recover. With some variations exist, the concept follow a staged approach to waste
management e.g., improve waste collection and simple disposal before bringing in more complex
waste processing systems. A similar urban management hierarchy to waste management could be
adopted for urban management and efforts toward developing sustainable cities.
An urban management hierarchy may follow the continuum: (i) basic service provision; (ii)
service coverage and reliability; (iii) connectivity, resilience, integrated finance; and, (iv)
sustainability. A city’s progress on the management hierarchy may be observed and tracked
through a scoring system (to be developed). The four stages of the hierarchy may include
specific elements as follows:
Basic Service Provision
 Credible legal and regulatory framework
 Reliable governance and institutions
 Clear and public performance and quality of life indicators
 Agreed-to employee terms of references and accountability
 Demarcated professional and political roles
 Public safety and security
 Service master plan and defined legal boundaries of relevant local governments
 Water supply, wastewater collection, solid waste management, electricity, urban
transportation – defined service levels and credible targets (with scheduled service plans)
 Community and private sector inclusion
 Defined and measured service levels to the poor and disadvantaged
Service Coverage and Reliability
 Environmental management and local ecosystem protection
 Incentives integrated in order to enhance efficiency
 Access to private sector involvement – assessment of opportunities for innovation
 Coordination among multi-level governments
 Monitoring of public perception – promotion of genuine public participation
 Clear accountability – and defined oversight responsibilities
 Measureable, regularly reported, agreed-to performance targets
Connectivity, Resilience and Integrated Finance
 Regular and sustained access to urban innovations (science, technology, governance)
10





Access to local and global finance with preferential rates for superior local government
performance (e.g. green bonds, preferential insurance rates)
Employee and citizen awareness of relevant global trends
Resilient to natural disasters – ongoing risk mitigation program
Innovation and constant improvement of local institutions
Regional and global collaboration
Sustainable City
 Local and global environmental security (awareness of, and adherence to ecosystem
limits)
 Locally and globally competitive economy (with appreciation of benefits of cooperation)
 Social inclusion and equity (Gini coefficient, local and global support to poor and
disadvantaged)
 Sustainability involves trade-offs; how the city considers and quantifies these is
important, e.g., some cities may prefer less density but then may need to compensate with
better transportation systems and carbon pricing.
Tool #4: Identification and analysis of local and global system boundaries
The GEF Sustainable Cities IAP proposes to include a system boundaries analysis as a tool,
addressing both socio-economic indicators as well as physical science indicators. Rockstrom et
al, 2009 propose a suite of quantified physical planetary systems limits; namely, climate change,
ocean acidification, ozone depletion, nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, freshwater use, changes
in land use, and biodiversity. Biodiversity, nitrogen cycle and climate change are estimated to
now be beyond the planet’s sustainable carrying capacity. The planetary boundaries concept is
referenced in the GEF 2020 strategy as a basis to help inform its drivers-based approach.
Socio-economic indicators may include: youth opportunity, economy, energy poverty and
intensity, mobility and connectivity, institutions, basic services, security and public safety. The
socio-economic limits are aggregated globally (for the world’s largest cities); however their
contribution to analysis is likely more at a city level (metropolitan area). While a simpler
approach, with fewer than the seven sectors, may be pursued, sustainable development will only
emerge through an integrated and holistic approach. Leaving one or more of the sectors for later
invites delay and arguments on what should be left for later versus undertaken today. This
reinforces the need to start the process with larger, more capable and open cities, willing to work
with relevant partners as the methodology is developed and trialed.
In taking a cities approach to planetary limits, both local and global impacts need to be
considered from individual cities as well as global aggregate impacts. The global base level is
provided for physical and socio-economic limits of the largest cities. Annex 2 further presents
the proposed applications of this tool, and an example of its application.
Additional tools that may be considered include urban credit worthiness assessments,
sustainability cost curve applications, and others.
11
3. Proposed Time Horizon, IAP Focus, and Selection Criteria
Proposed time horizon: short-term and long-term
To provide a credible assessment of potential key infrastructure proposed for pilot cities, a
sufficiently long time horizon is needed. The Sustainable Cities IAP needs to reflect both longterm sustainability objectives as well as meet shorter-term, need-for-visible-action objectives.
The IAP thus proposes a 35-year timeframe to 2050 for the long- and short-term action by 2020.
The IAP will also be reviewed in 2018.
The short- and longer-timeframes facilitate a more fulsome comparison of existing technologies
to new options, e.g. waste-to-energy options versus fuel cells. Identifying 2050 as the longerterm target for sustainability also meets with the objectives and aspirations of the Sustainable
Development Goals (see Annex 3), and facilitates credible and comparable cost curves, and
provides sufficient time to cover potential political transitions, technological advances, and
personnel changes. Cities are usually built around large-scale ‘civil works.’9 For example, much
of today’s major urban infrastructure was built more than 50 years ago. Rome’s aqueducts;
Jakarta’s port-are; the subway systems of London, Paris and Moscow; most of European,
Japanese and American railway alignments; key canals, bridges and airports – these major
infrastructure works are well over 35-years old, and are still providing considerable service
today. Much of the under-pinning of any city, and especially those aspiring to be a sustainable
city, is infrastructure with 35 years or more life expectancy.
Metropolitan Approach
A key contribution of Sustainable Cities IAP is its ability to support an integrated, metropolitan
approach to participating cities.
All of the world’s 100 largest cities are urban agglomerations. Some are made up of more than
40 local governments. Metropolitan Lagos (eventually to be the world’s largest city) is made up
of 20 local governments. The boundary of the metropolitan area is often ill-defined. ‘Toronto’
for example is an urban area with at least six unique boundaries.10 Mayors of large cities often
travel internationally speaking on behalf of ‘their city’, yet the city may be less than half the
metropolitan area’s population, e.g., City of Jakarta 10.1 million versus metro ‘Jabodetabek’ 24.1
million; Mexico City 8.8 million versus metro area 21.2 million; Mumbai city 13.9 million
versus metro 21.2 million.
A metropolitan-scale approach is critical as most of the large energy and materials intensive
services like transportation need a metro-wide analysis. This often makes analysis more difficult
as each local government may have disparate interests, however the broad efficiencies envisaged
from sustainable cities will not materialize without comprehensive metro-wide planning and
‘Civil’ engineers were the first group of engineers to be distinguished – separate from ‘military’ engineers. Civil engineers
typically design, build and manage infrastructure. They build cities (particularly ‘the bones’ of the city).
10 Toronto’s six urban boundaries include: (i) the City of Toronto (population of 2.62 million); (ii) the Census Metropolitan Area
(5.71 million); (iii) the Greater Toronto Area (6.13 million); (iv) the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (6.65 million); the
Toronto Urban Region (8.05 million), and; (v) the Golden Horseshoe (9.09 million).
9
12
delivery. Each pilot city within the platform should first determine what local governments are
included in the metropolitan city.
Starting with Larger Cities
There are about 340 cities larger than one million – more than half in middle- and low-income
countries; these are all strong contenders to act as crucial pilot sites. In 2050 about 138 cities are
expected to have 5-million or more residents, some like Dar es Salaam, Mumbai, Jakarta and
Shanghai with more than 15-million citizens (see Table 2).
The recommendation for the GEF IAP sustainable cities support is to focus on cities that are
expected to have five million or more residents in 2050. These larger cities can be argued to be
the priority as they are home to the majority of the world’s wealth, resource consumption,
associated pollution and impacts to biodiversity. Also, large cities are traditionally more
challenged by coordination issues, and should seek out objective external partnerships, especially
with regard to metropolitan issues, which are emerging as one of the 21st Century’s most
intractable challenges. Furthermore, large cities over the next few decades will drive the largest
creation of wealth ever. As these cities grow, and local real estate values increase along with the
growth in population and density, they should seek out opportunities to enhance and share this
new wealth.
Table 2: The World’s Largest Cities in 2050 (metro populations using WUP projections)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
World’s Largest Cities in 2050 - World Urbanization Prospects
47,405,075
Mumbai (Bombay), India
51
Hanoi, Viet Nam
40,185,201
Delhi, India
52
London, UK
37,463,323
Dhaka, Bangladesh
53
Seoul, Republic of Korea
36,976,677
Kinshasa, DRC
54
Hong Kong SAR, China
36,789,002
Kolkata (Calcutta), India
55
Kampala, Uganda
36,317,189
Lagos, Nigeria
56
Surat, India
35,069,719
Tokyo, Japan
57
Chongqing, China
33,322,655
Karachi, Pakistan
58
Ibadan, Nigeria
29,771,600
New York-Newark (NY), USA
59
Alexandria, Egypt
27,899,557
Ciudad De Mexico, Mexico
60
Dakar, Senegal
27,269,877
Cairo, Egypt
61
Yangon, Myanmar
26,964,744
Metro Manila, Philippines
62
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
25,331,438
Sao Paulo, Brazil
63
Bamako, Mali
25,312,920
Shanghai, China
64
Miami (FL), USA
21,956,353
Lahore, Pakistan
65
Santiago, Brazil
20,091,832
Kabul, Afghanistan
66
Kanpur, India
19,080,286
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (CA), USA
67
Philadelphia (PA), USA
18,952,129
Chennai (Madras), India
68
Antananarivo, Madagascar
18,118,292
Khartoum, Sudan
69
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
18,027,123
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
70
Faisalabad (Lyallpur), Pakistan
17,852,479
Beijing (Peking), China
71
Toronto, Canada
17,716,202
Jakarta, Indonesia
72
Abuja, Nigeria
17,073,101
Bangalore, India
73
Jaipur, India
16,487,372
Buenos Aires, Argentina
74
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
16,218,123
Baghdad, Iraq
75
Niamey, Niger
15,967,802
Hyderabad, India
76
Santiago, Chile
13
10,865,748
10,846,263
10,649,833
10,487,986
10,385,081
10,316,941
10,092,061
9,921,571
9,865,148
9,857,951
9,738,860
9,303,186
8,965,158
8,719,120
8,633,403
8,135,258
8,025,967
7,982,208
7,956,741
7,939,412
7,885,326
7,808,832
7,790,506
7,680,796
7,679,709
7,641,188
15,884,358
15,783,866
15,732,997
15,306,379
13,627,624
13,523,389
13,150,247
13,137,100
13,072,586
12,904,720
12,775,694
12,690,334
12,479,995
12,295,334
12,203,182
11,879,486
11,832,375
11,655,715
11,498,011
11,448,244
11,283,416
11,015,277
10,988,333
10,983,039
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Luanda, Angola
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Nairobi, Kenya
Istanbul, Turkey
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
Ahmedabad, India
Chittagong, Bangladesh
Chicago (IL), USA
Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam
Lima, Peru
Bogota, D.C., Colombia
Shenzhen, China
Paris, France
Bangkok, Thailand
Tehran, Iran
Pune, India
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire
Kano, Nigeria
Wuhan, China
Moscow, Russia
Osaka-Kobe, Japan
Tianjin, China
Sana'a, Yemen
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
World’s Largest Cities – Population Projection in 2050; World Urbanization Prospects
Lilongwe, Malawi
Guadalupe, Nuevo León, Mexico
6,052,874
151
Kunming, China
Barcelona, Spain
6,052,874
152
Kalyoubia, Egypt
Guiyang, China
5,932,345
153
Blantyre City, Malawi
Lusaka, Zambia
5,865,491
154
Mombasa, Kenya
Detroit (MI), USA
5,829,578
155
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Maputo, Mozambique
5,809,972
156
Al-Hudaydah, Yemen
N'Djamena, Chad
5,802,201
157
Pyongyang, DPR of Korea
Jiddah, Saudi Arabia
5,764,813
158
Khulna, Bangladesh
Ankara, Turkey
5,708,551
159
Seattle (WA), USA
Singapore, Singapore
5,683,847
160
Multan, Pakistan
Damascus, Syria
5,638,701
161
Monrovia, Liberia
Algiers (El Djazair), Algeria
5,606,205
162
Gujranwala, Pakistan
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
5,569,888
163
Vadodara, India
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
5,557,772
164
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Douala, Cameroon
5,534,631
165
Kuwait City, Kuwait
Haerbin, China
5,491,072
166
Qingdao, China
Patna, India
5,481,378
167
Benin City, Nigeria
Melbourne, Australia
5,468,430
168
Bhopal, India
Monterrey, Mexico
5,377,637
169
Curitiba, Brazil
Surabaya, Indonesia
5,358,949
170
Jinan, Shandong, China
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
5,304,270
171
Fuzhou, Fujian, China
Lome, Togo
5,302,399
172
Coimbatore, India
Medellín, Colombia
5,294,746
173
Changsha, Hunan, China
Porto Alegre, Brazil
5,291,291
174
Hyderabad, Pakistan
Casablanca (Dar-el-Beida), Morocco
5,218,962
175
Ta'izz, Yemen
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
5,189,194
176
San Diego (CA), USA
Phoenix-Mesa (AZ), USA
5,177,419
177
14
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Dongguan, Guangdong, China
Shenyang, China
Mogadishu, Somalia
Giza, Egypt
Madrid, Spain
Dallas-Fort Worth (TX), USA
Lucknow, India
Tlaquepaque, Mexico
Tonala, Mexico
Zapopan, Mexico
Atlanta (GA), USA
Lubumbashi, DRC
Conakry, Guinea
Houston (TX), USA
Boston (MA), USA
Mbuji-Mayi, DRC
Accra, Ghana
Aleppo, Syria
Washington (DC), USA
Chengdu, China
Sydney, Australia
Guadalajara, Mexico
Nagpur, India
Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
7,406,453
7,329,327
6,986,284
6,966,613
6,886,304
6,872,605
6,849,837
6,794,759
6,744,462
6,617,098
6,582,660
6,563,327
6,563,327
6,563,327
6,563,327
6,531,657
6,511,984
6,419,593
6,392,701
6,376,057
6,191,586
6,166,533
6,140,764
6,129,362
4,622,988
4,613,808
4,583,041
4,545,907
4,479,017
4,472,662
4,462,470
4,454,102
4,428,284
4,402,743
4,402,351
4,357,431
4,352,880
4,316,456
4,303,940
4,291,640
4,274,770
4,225,914
4,224,606
4,206,267
4,163,786
4,161,406
4,139,848
4,134,314
4,107,948
4,071,910
4,070,382
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Brasilia, Brazil
Kaduna, Nigeria
Montréal, Canada
Indore, India
Johannesburg, South Africa
Changchun, China
Kumasi, Ghana
San Francisco-Oakland (CA), USA
Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Dalian, China
Hangzhou, China
Recife, Brazil
Haiphong, Viet Nam
Salvador, Brazil
Cape Town, South Africa
Kigali, Rwanda
Zibo, China
Yaoundé, Cameroon
Fortaleza, Brazil
St. Petersburg, Russia
Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
Bandung, Indonesia
Caracas, Venezuela
5,155,538
5,139,171
5,113,884
5,104,382
5,100,604
5,090,505
4,996,497
4,952,191
4,915,542
4,820,884
4,800,655
4,787,886
4,776,388
4,771,066
4,740,223
4,736,155
4,728,077
4,674,496
4,654,664
4,652,293
4,648,609
4,637,687
4,636,615
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Lanzhou, China
Mosul, Iraq
Ludhiana, India
Xiamen, China
Asuncion, Paraguay
Medan, Indonesia
Kathmandu, Nepal
Agra, India
Jinxi, Liaoning, China
Zhengzhou, China
Durban, South Africa
Athens, Greece
Brazzaville, DRC
Izmir, Turkey
San Martín Texmelucan, Mexico
Shijiazhuang, China
Mashhad, Iran
Jilin, China
Nanchang, China
Campinas, Brazil
Harare, Zimbabwe
Wenzhou, China
Taipei, China
4,052,240
4,026,786
4,008,734
4,007,511
4,005,345
3,997,931
3,949,111
3,949,111
3,940,991
3,939,575
3,938,210
3,881,866
3,881,497
3,872,851
3,844,931
3,826,075
3,808,883
3,807,492
3,807,143
3,792,487
3,759,690
3,758,568
3,755,185
From: Hoornweg and Pope, Population Predictions of the 101 Largest Cities in the 21 st Century. Working Paper 4,
Global Cities Institute. 2014
Selection Criteria
Following are proposed criteria for selecting cities to participate in the pilot program:
1. Local and national level commitment to integrated urban management and policy, and
articulation of urbanization challenges in relevant national sustainable development
strategies and policies.
2. Experiences with managing key sectors and causes of local and global environmental
isues with demonstrated results, and existence of coordination mechanisms.
3. Characterization of current and projected urbanization trends and their impacts on the
global environment in the city/urban area as well as the country.
4. Relevance of the proposed city within the context of the global urbanization challenges
and within the context of global enivonmental conditions (i.e., why is it important to
address this particular city from the global urbanization perspective and from the global
environmental perspective).
5. Commitment to partnerships, with potential for leveraging, coordination, and synergy.
6. Replication potential within country and globally.
7. Agreement to monitor, track, and report on a harmonized set of performance indicators
(metrics) on regular intervals as agreed. Provision of current city indicators with the
proposal to show existing data and informations is available, credible, and readily shared.
8. Likelihood of progress by the 2018 review.
15
9. Availability of exisiting and projected baseline support, with pprovision of credible
overall financing plans for activities identified in city proposal.
10. Diversity of selected cities/urban areas, including regional distribution and status of
urbanization (addressing current cities versus managing for the future).
The pilot cities in GEF Sustainable Cities IAP should be cities and urban areas that want to lead;
that want to bring together disparate but connected initiatives; that are willing to work with
various levels of government and international agencies. These cities are needed to refine urban
management tools, try out new approaches, and provide well-grounded, helpful feedback to
myriad organizations as they expand their efforts with additional cities. Eventually many of the
tools envisaged in the common platform may be adopted by all cities. Data management systems
will be developed, responsibilities and financing agreed-to, and ways identified to better
integrate these initiatives.
The pilot cities need to offer a safe space where assistance and small amounts of additional
funding can be integrated in a way that maximizes benefits to local citizens as well as local and
global ecosystems. The pilot cities also need to act as catalysts for external organizations as
disparate as engineering societies, NGOs, and financiers to come together. These pilots are not
intended to end. To the contrary, they should grow into longer-term world-wide city activities.
Building and managing a city is an honor. Doing it well requires public support, experience,
open-mindedness, pragmatism, and always, a healthy dose of optimism. This is a skill that can be
enhanced, but even more important in today’s rush to urbanization, this is a skill that needs to be
shared. Everyone who works with cities knows well how in all regions and countries, a few cities
stand out for being particularly well-managed. Not necessarily richer, or more privileged, or
larger, but for one reason or another, a handful of cities often set the standard of good urban
management.
Elements to be Included in Proposal
In order to apply to participate, an interested city, in partnership with its national government, is
invited to submit a proposal that articulates the following elements:
1. Provide an initial draft of the consolidated regional (sustainability) planning document.
2. Confirmation of commitment from national government and participating city or
metropolitan/regional authority (i.e. Council resolution or equivalent).
3. Description of urbanization challenges (both current and projected) in the proposed city
and host country.
4. Discussion of how the proposed initiatives address urban challenges in an integrated,
multi-disciplinary manner and how the proposed initiatives work toward transformative
change, and go beyond a single GEF focal area.
5. Description of how developing and implementing the integrated urban management
plans, with agreed-to investments, provides both local and global benefits, with metrics.
16
6. Analysis of challenges and barriers faced at the local and/or national levels, and how the
GEF support, and potential partners, might be used to address them.
7. Description of the mechanism and responsibilities of relevant institutions for: (1)
integrated urban management planning; and (2) national-regional-local coordination.
8. Baseline (current and/or planned) initiatives and descriptions (with quantification) of how
the GEF support will build on the baseline and enhance synergy for transformational
impacts.
9. Provision of the first iteration of a low-carbon growth strategy for the city-wide urban
area (with estimated GHG-emissions from 2015 to 2050). Inclusion of an assessment of
projected energy demand and supply (in a consistent manner with the IEA-supported city
projections).
10. Record of at least one local dialogue with private sector partners (such as chamber of
commerce) to discuss the role of the private sector in local city-building and management
(prepare a report similar to the Urban Infrastructure Initiative of WBCSD).
11. Expression of willingness to share lessons learned within the country, in partnership with
relevant national and local institutions and with other participating countries/cities to
facilitate mutual learning and to foster scaling-up.
12. An initial list of current partners and highlights of program of support, and plan for
stakeholder engagement.
13. Concise descriptions about how the proposed initiative may help address the goals of
relevant multilateral environmental conventions.
14. Inclusion of investment proposals which are leveraged, innovative, and scalable to bring
about global environmental benefits.
17
4. Potential Partners
The Academics (Local and global academic institutions). How do you build a great city? Build a
great university and wait two hundred years (from US Senator Monaghan). With regard to
sustainable cities however, the world does not have 200 years to wait for a durable partnership
between pilot cities and their local universities. Most cities with more than 1,000,000 residents
have local academic institution(s) that are likely already working with their host community.
These partnerships should be strengthened and the proposed pilot cities and their host countries
should fully integrate a comprehensive research program with their local universities.
Today there are more than 600 accredited teaching hospitals around the world: If you want to
graduate as a fully-licensed doctor you will need to intern at one of these teaching hospitals.
Surprisingly, even though urban management consumes a much larger share of global GDP,
there is not (yet) a single partnered ‘teaching-city’ and university. Accredited, well-experienced
and professional urban managers are urgently needed. This GEF supported platform provides an
opportunity to catalyze broad-based local and global (long term) university-city support.
As part of the platform, the pilot cities, plus several representative Part-1 member cities (and
their local universities) should develop a global ad hoc academic-city teaching partnership.
Several cities and universities are standing-by, willing to participate.
Pilot cities should avail themselves to work with local universities to help with data collection,
verification and modeling of proposed infrastructure works.
The Engineers (American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, World Federation of Engineering
Organizations). Arguably no profession or stakeholder is more responsible for encouraging
efforts toward sustainable cities than the engineers, especially civil engineers. In most countries
engineers are legally bound to adhere to the tenets of sustainable development, yet track-records
are not exemplary. Engineering associations like ASCE, WFEO and Engineers without Borders,
EWB, recognize this and are taking positive steps to address these needs.
Every road, every bridge, every bolt, every power station has a calculated factor of safety. The
design engineer used his or her professional judgment to include sufficient capacity to
compensate for what is not known, or where failure might occur. When building sustainable
cities during the next 35 years engineers need to be more assertive in calculating, communicating
and assuring that a ‘factor of sustainability’ is included in the aggregate civil works of a city.
Evaluating a single ‘green building’ within a congested, polluted, dangerous city is no greener
than assuming a single tree can make a forest.
A significant challenge to sustainable cities is the lack of engineers, especially in Africa. A more
than 80-fold increase in engineers is needed in some countries (a task more daunting than finding
funding). The UK for example has a population of about 1,100 per engineering graduate, while
Cameroon, Ethiopia and Mozambique have populations greater than 81,000 per engineering
graduate (and many of these engineers leave the country upon graduation). By 2050 an
18
additional 20,000,000 engineering students are needed in Africa (based on similar staffing levels
in OECD-member countries) Hoornweg et al, 2014.
The City Associations (ICLEI, UCLG [Metropolis], C40, GCIF, WCCD, Cities Alliance).
Likely every country with more than a handful of cities has an active municipal (city)
association. These associations, in countries like Colombia and the Philippines, provide
important information sharing and capacity building among cities. As a first step, these
associations should be identified and assisted where possible. Many of them are already talking
to their international compatriots, however these discussions are generally more restrained than
country-to-country dialogues as cities tend to have much smaller travel budgets and tend to be
more parochial (local) than their national governments.
A few international city associations emerged in the last 40 years. ICLEI, one of the first
international city associations, was launched at the initial WCCD Rio Conference in 1992.
Important follow on city associations include Union of Cities and Local Governments
(established in 2003), with the larger city association of Metropolis. C40 (now representing
some75 cities) started as a mayor-to-mayor initiative to encourage greater city-based
involvement in climate change activities. Cities Alliance, a donor supported association focused
on Part-2 member cities, is an important partner as its long standing ‘City Development Strategy’
is similar to GEF’s proposed city platform. The GCIF is another important city-member
organization and the WCCD, building on GCIF’s membership base is growing city data platform
that is working with cities to implement ISO 37120 standard on city indicators.
The Foundations (e.g. Rockefeller, Gates). The Rockefeller Foundation helped publish a
seminal book, ‘The Century of the City’ in 2009. More recently the Foundation launched the 100
Resilient Cities campaign, requiring participating cities to create the position of ‘Chief
Resilience Officer’ (cities are provided a grant of up to $1 million to enhance resilience).
The Gates Foundation, similar to many foundations working on sustainable development issues
is increasingly targeting urban issues. Foundation support to cities, or their urban partners, is
likely to continue to grow as urbanization grows and the power of cities to bring about greater
local and global sustainability intensifies. The ‘simple’ driver that between now and 2050 the
world’s cities over 5 million residents (with all the associated energy and materials use) is likely
to increase from 58 to at least 138 is sobering – all partners are needed.
The NGOs and ‘Think Tanks’ (e.g. World Resources Institute WRI, World Economic Forum
WEF, World Wildlife Fund WWF). Many of these organizations have long-standing
involvement with cities. WRI, for example prepared one of the most important papers on cities
and material flows in 1997. Hopefully WWF will be amenable to preparing a draft index of citybased biodiversity impact (needed for sustainable city limit mapping).
UN-Habitat, UNEP and other UN organizations. The UN, similar to organizations like the
World Bank is ‘owned and managed’ by countries (although UN-Habitat has the express
mandate to represent sub-sovereign governments directly). Countries often have different
objectives than cities. Even though there is ‘only one voter and one taxpayer’ this tension
between various levels of government waxes and wanes in most countries. Based on mandates
19
and priorities, conciliation always needs to be practiced between national and city governments.
Cities are also learning how to interact (directly) with international agencies, and what on-theground assistance may be forthcoming.
UNEP will likely grow its mandate vis-a-vis cities – probably in at least two areas. UNEP’s
‘City-Level Decoupling’ initiative, which encourages greater efforts at reduced material flows
and circular economies, is an important program for cities. UNEP may also be called to fulfill
part of its original mandate – environmental monitoring – in cities. UNEP might emerge, for
example, as an unbiased (urban) air and water quality monitor.
UN-Habitat can assist cities through its important Habitat III Conference scheduled for 2016.
UN-Habitat is also an important proponent for an urban focus in the proposed 2015 Sustainable
Development Goals (see Annex 3).
International Finance Institutions. IFIs like the World Bank, Asian, Inter-American, and
African Development Banks, as well as the new BRIC Bank, provide considerable finance to
activities within cities. Increasingly these activities are being directly supported through local
governments. These investments should be evaluated within an urban area’s overall
sustainability plan.
The IFIs also have ancillary services important to cities, e.g. analysis and data collection
services, partner institutions like the International Finance Corporation.
Financiers and Insurance Agencies. These are two powerful global groups who would benefit
considerably from more sustainable cities. Financiers, such as those issuing ‘green bonds’ and
longer-term investments often sought through pensions and sovereign wealth funds, would
benefit from more sustainable cities. So too would the insurance industry – who will benefit
considerably as cities increase their resilience thereby reducing potential insurance claims. These
two groups should be consulted as the GEF platform evolves as they could provide long-term
support for the initiative.
Private Sector Associations (e.g. WBCSD, Chambers of Commerce). WBCSD’s Urban
Infrastructure Initiative is remarkably similar to the common platform proposed by GEF.
Consolidating the UII experience and integrating the private sector supported approach would
likely provide considerable benefits to pilot cities. Similarly, local and international chambers of
commerce are important constituents as they provide direct feedback on how corporations
perceive the receptivity and credibility of cities as they interact with the private sector.
Corporations (e.g. Siemens, Cisco, GDF Suez, Unilever). Many magazines are awash in
corporate adds for smart cities, connected cities, green city indices and city-based analysis, e.g.
McKinsey, PwC, Accenture. These companies all appreciate the sheer enormity of the urban
market. The world’s economy is driven by cities. These corporations have some of the best
analytics and experience available. Much can be accessed by cities (without automatically
paying). Through mutually-beneficial partnerships and clear assistance strategies, cities can take
advantage of this wealth of expertise. The GEF platform can facilitate much of this support.
20
Local private sector. Most city managers prefer to deal with local representatives, and most of
the world’s private sector is local. Cities do well to constantly assess local perceptions of their
interactions with local (and global) companies. Participating pilot cities should ask to have a
unique review for them included in the World Bank’s annual ‘Doing Business Review.’ The
lessons and import are even more compelling when applied locally.
21
Annex 1 Methodology on Material Flow Analysis in Cities
This approach is consistent with UNEP’s Resource Efficient Cities initiative, as well as lowcarbon city growth strategies. The measure of GHG emissions, for example, is based on the C40ICLEI-WRI community emissions inventory.
ENERGYOUT
MINERALSTOCK
ENERGYI
WATEROUT
N
WATERIN
MINERALI
N
MINERALOUT
MINERALPRO
BIOMASSPR
D.
OD.
WATERINTERNA
BIOMASSIN
WATERSTOCK
L
Figure A1.1. Urban system boundary showing inflows, outflows, internal flows, storage and
production of biomass, minerals, water, and energy (adapted from Kennedy & Hoornweg, 2012)
22
Table A1.1: Data Requirements for Abbreviated Urban Metabolism Studies (GCIF=Global
Cities Indicator Facility)
Quantity
INFLOWS
Food
Water (imports)
Water (precipitation)
Groundwater abstraction
Construction materials
Fossil fuels (by type)
Electricity
Total incoming solar radiation
Nitrogen & Phosphorus
PRODUCED
Food
Construction materials
STOCKS
Construction materials
Nitrogen & Phosphorus
Landfill waste
Construction/demolition waste
OUTFLOWS
Exported landfill waste
Incinerated waste
Exported recyclables
Wastewater
Nitrogen & Phosphorus
SO2
NOx
CO
Volatile organics
Particulates
Methane
Ozone
Black carbon
GCIF
Required
for GHG
calculation
√
√*
√*
√
√*
√
√*
√
√
Notes
Standard climate data
Primarily cement, aggregates, steel
Standard climate data
Example nutrient
√*
√
Cement and steel production
In the building stock
√
Accumulated
√
√
Air emission plus accumulated mass
√
√
√+
√+
*: has upstream (embodied) GHG emissions
+: typically omitted from GHG calculations due to difficulty in estimation
23
OE
SM
IE
OW
Iw
OM
PM
PB
IM
QW
IB
SW
Figure A1.2. Urban systems boundary broadly showing inflows (I), outflows (O), internal flows
(Q), storage (S) and production (P) of biomass (B), minerals (M), water (W), and energy (E).
wood
other materials
Other (machinery, durable) [t]
metals
other materials
Substances
Inflows
Biomass [t & J]
food
wood
Fossil Fuel [t & J]
transport
heating/industrial
Minerals [t]
metals
construction materials
Electricity [kWh]
Natural energy [J]
Water [t]
Drinking (surface & groundwater)
Precipitation
Substances [t]
e.g. nutrients
Produced goods [t]
Production
Biomass [t & J]
Minerals [t]
Outflows
Waste Emissions [t]
gases
solid
wastewater
other liquids
Heat [J]
Substances [t]
Produced goods [t]
Stocks
Infrastructure / Buildings [t]
construction materials
metals
24
Annex 2 Identification and Analysis of Local and Global System
Boundaries
Global and Local Physical Limits
With Rockstrom et al boundaries (i.e. limits) as a starting point (Figure A2.1); Figure A2.2
presents a global aggregate for proposed physical limits of the world’s largest cities. The limits
are applicable to all cities however for ease of analysis investigation of the larger cities is
prioritized, i.e., those cities (urban agglomerations) over 5 million population. The analysis
includes an additional boundary (or limit) for geophysical risk. This includes seismic and
weather related risk the city faces, e.g. sea level increase, earthquake, volcanoes, landslide,
storms and flooding. The value is an aggregate estimate of risk to life and property. Geophysical
risk includes rapid onset events such as typhoons and earthquakes: Long-term climate related
events, such as drought, pestilence and changes to growing seasons are considered elsewhere.
Figure A2.1: Physical science boundaries proposed by Rockstrom et al.
Added to the Rockstrom et al boundaries is (local) ‘pollution’ which estimates local (and
cumulative) values for air pollution (smog and indoor/outdoor particulate), water pollution
(COD, BOD, flotsam, and heavy metals) and land pollution (solid waste and brownfields), which
tend to be locally generated and experienced. These values are expected to vary markedly for
assessed cities.
This urban approach to Rockstrom et al limits facilitates the merging between local and global
impacts and ecosystem services. Cities may react most quickly to immediate local needs,
however cities are acutely aware that these impacts arise from a gradient of ecosystem impacts,
25
whether it be local solid waste and habitat destruction or global GHG emissions and loss of
biodiversity.
Geophysical
Risks (by City
level)
Climate Change
Rate of
Biodiversity
Loss
Pollution
Nitrogen Cycle
Fresh Water Use
Change In Land
Use
Figure A2.2: Physical science indicators for cities in a global context; adapted from the boundaries proposed
by Rockstrom et al.
The boundaries for climate change are consistent with Rockstrom et al (a total per capita GHGemissions value provided – Scopes 1, 2 and 3). So too nitrogen and phosphorous boundaries;
absolute per capita values are provided. Biodiversity, fresh water use, and land-use change, are
consistent with Rockstrom et al. Values are derived through one-half local impact and one-half
global impact. For activities like biodiversity loss, an index is used, dividing the participating
cities into quintiles.
Global Social Limits
The social limits, or boundaries, of sustainability include seven metrics (i. youth opportunity, ii.
economy, iii. energy poverty and intensity, iv. mobility and connectivity, v. institutions, vi. basic
services, vii. security and public safety); all with equal weighting. Where definitive values are
not available, values are estimated.
The boundaries align with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) now under preparation. Preliminary discussions are advocating for
an ‘urban SDG’ however this may be of limited value as no single value can portend to connote
‘urban progress’, rather a suite of indicators and goals are needed to capture progress in cities.
26
Figure A2.3 provides an approximation to the global social science boundaries (i.e. socioeconomic) – estimated in relation to existing objectives and global limits. These are mainly a
reflection of the MDGs, moving to SDGs. Most of the data is available on a regular basis
through datasets hosted by organization such as the GCIF and soon the data platform and global
registry for ISO 37120 to be hosted by the not-for-profit WCCD. Approximations are needed as
values are required for the entire urban area, rather than an individual city alone.
Security and
Public Safety
Youth
Opportunity
Basic
Services
Economy
Institutions
Mobility and
Connectivity
Energy
Poverty
Including
Access to
Electricity
Figure A2.3: Social Sciences: Global Situation Compared to Targets
Application of local and global (i.e. the total spectrum) limits and ecosystem degradation is
particularly relevant to large urban areas. Through this approach, local ‘greening’ programs
(such as habitat protection and ‘welcoming wildlife to the city’, e.g. urban birdlife corridor),
enhanced food security (e.g. urban agriculture), and an increased appreciation of embodied
resources and vicarious ecosystem impacts, are all possible for the city resident and manager.
The urban limits approach helps facilitate cities to be more aware, and able to respond, to
common issues that manifest in different ways locally and globally.
Using the physical and socio-economic limits as outlined above, large scale civil works can be
assessed for their overall contribution to sustainability, similar to environmental assessments,
feasibility studies, and detailed financing plans. These investments can be placed within an
agreed-to and common sustainability cost curve for the city. Each of the world’s major cities
should have a base sustainability cost curve that presents a rolling 35-year investment horizon.
Potential (and recent) publicly-funded investments are placed along the curve relative to each
other. This additional planning step is arguably mainly the responsibility of the engineering
profession. The World Federation of Engineering Organizations, for example, calls for engineers
to assess the unique and cumulative impacts of all major civil works. To-date this is only applied
in piece-meal fashion and a community is not able to see where a proposed investment fits within
the broader and longer term sustainability objectives of the investment.
27
The report, ‘Building Sustainability in an Urbanizing World: A Partnership Report’, World
Bank, 2013 contained two annexes, ‘Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System’ (Annex 5) and
‘Engineering for Sustainable Development’ (Annex 6) that set the framework for development of
sustainability cost curves. Rather than for discrete projects in isolation the sustainability cost
curve applies the concept across the city for all publicly-funded investments in excess of $10
million (capital and operating costs). This approach is designed expressly to help ensure ‘wellbuilt bones’ for the city. The World Federation of Engineering Organizations with local
engineering faculties would help develop these sustainability ratings.
Example: Dakar Metropolitan Area, Senegal
Dakar Urban Region has a population around 2.7 million today. In 2050 the population is
projected to be 9.86 million (making it then the 60th largest city in the world). Growing more
than three-fold in one generation obviously presents enormous challenges (even if projections are
high, the growth pressures are enormous). Energy projections for Dakar, for example, expect a
greater than ten-fold increase in energy demand (and corresponding emissions; UOIT draft
working paper 2014).
Dakar Metropolitan Area covers 1% of Senegal’s land area; however, it is the host of nearly 50%
of the country’s urban population. Dakar Metropolitan Area is prone to natural disasters such as
flooding, coastal erosion, and sea level rise. For example, over 5% of the Dakar Metropolitan
urban area is exposed to high risk natural hazards. The city also suffers from serious air pollution
with 80 𝜇𝑔/𝑚3, compared to the WHO targets of 10 𝜇𝑔/𝑚3. Access to clean water is not yet
provided to 10% of the population, and nearly 75 percent of solid waste is uncollected. Figures
A2.4 and A2.5 illustrate the city’s physical and socio-economic limits relative to the global
average.
Dakar is well-studied. A Local Agenda 21 was prepared in 2001 by Gaye et al. Cities Alliance
facilitated a comprehensive City Development Strategy (CDS) in November 2010. Dakar is one
of the 100 Resilient Cities with the Rockefeller Foundation, and has several active World Bank
projects, including the $531 million Diamniado Toll Road project. Dakar reports its GHG
emissions through Carbon Disclosure Project. Dakar joined the Global City Indicators Facility
April 2012.
To achieve any semblance of sustainable development by 2050, it is especially important that
cities like Dakar meet most of the criteria of a sustainable city. Many external agencies
appreciate this need based on the long and comprehensive nature of assistance to Dakar. These
assistance programs would benefit from integration, coordination, peer-review, historical capture
and ownership by the community (residents and governments).
An indicative process follows:


Government officials of Dakar and Senegal informed of program.
Determine what area constitutes Dakar Metropolitan Area.
28




Application made jointly by Dakar (Urban Authority) and Government of Senegal
(presumably accepted in this example).
Review and consolidation of relevant reports, data and recommendations – likely with a
particular focus on: (i) resilience (Dakar and the Cap-Vert Peninsula particularly
susceptible to coastal flooding and storm events); (ii) low-carbon energy supply (with a
ten-fold energy demand increase renewables and energy conservation (of growth)
critical); (iii) social services (with a burgeoning population, jobs and economy will need
to increase commensurately).
Application of common suite of urban diagnostics: (i) Access to ISO 37120
standardization urban metrics through Dakar’s membership in GCIF; (ii) early material
flows (urban metabolism) assessments complete (local and international engineering
faculties could finalize and submit for peer-review); (iii) much of hierarchy of urban
management completed through Cities Alliance CDS (needs updating); (iv) local and
international sustainability limits – first draft completed in a working paper by UOIT.
Prepare Dakar-specific sustainability plan.
Dakar Metropolitan Area (initial ‘sustainability limits’ review)
Illustrative purposes only – not for reference.
Geophysical
Risks (by
City level)
Climate
Change
Rate of
Biodiversity
Loss
Pollution
Nitrogen
Cycle
Fresh Water
Use
Change In
Land Use
Figure A2.4: Physical science limits: Dakar Metropolitan Area vs. global condition
29
Security and
Public Safety
Youth
Opportunity
Basic Services
Economy
Institutions
Mobility and
Connectivity
Energy
Poverty
Including
Access to
Electricity
Figure A2.5: Socio-economic limits: Dakar Metropolitan Area vs. World’s Target
30
Annex 3 Proposed Draft Urban Sustainable Development Goal
As part of the current draft 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, an ‘urban SDG’ is currently
proposed.
Goal Eleven: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
11.1, by 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services,
and upgrade slums
11.2, by 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for
all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the
needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older
persons
11.3, by 2030 enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacities for participatory,
integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries
11.4, strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage
11.5, by 2030 significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of affected people and
decrease by y% the economic losses relative to GDP caused by disasters, including water-related
disasters, with the focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
11.6, by 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying
special attention to air quality, municipal and other waste management
11.7, by 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public
spaces, particularly for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities
11.a, support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and
rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
11.b, by 2020, increase by x% the number of cities and human settlements adopting and
implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and
adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, develop and implement in line with the
forthcoming Hyogo Framework holistic disaster risk management at all levels
11.c, support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, for
sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials
31