Summary Report
Consultative Meeting on Sustainable Cities Integrated Approach Pilot
(27-28 August 2014)
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) organized a consultative meeting on Sustainable
Cities Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP) on 27 and 28 August 2014. The meeting was held as
an occasion to consult with stakeholders, including the relevant GEF Agencies, partner
institutions with active urban engagement, the GEF Science and Technical Advisory Panel,
and countries, to seek their inputs and suggestions.
Day 1 (27 August 2014)
Opening Remarks
The GEF CEO and Chairperson, Naoko Ishii, opened the meeting by reflecting on the global
environmental challenges that are being addressed by the GEF. Under the GEF 2020 medium
term strategy, two key points are addressed: 1) tackle the drivers of environmental
degradation and 2) integrated and holistic approach. Following the key points, the CEO
explained that cities are a natural place to try the holistic approach that deals with
environmental drivers. The GEF-6 period (2014-2018) has allocated US$100 million for
Sustainable Cities. Recognizing the advances being made by various stakeholders working on
the city level, the CEO shared her view that GEF’s role could be of fostering a coordinated
approach for cities and their leaders. The CEO requested the participants to share their
experiences and suggestions on how the GEF and the stakeholders could work together.
Setting the context session
The session was moderated by Gustavo Fonseca, Director of Programs, GEF. Mr. Fonseca
informed the participants on the new cycle of funding that contains three IAPs on: sustainable
cities, commodities, and food security. The IAPs allow dealing with local and global drivers
of environmental degradation across boundaries and promoting synergies.
Ms. Chizuru Aoki, GEF Climate Change Mitigation Coordinator, explained that the goal of
the Sustainable Cities IAP is to foster sustainable development of cities, promoting global
environmental benefits and cope with global environmental degradation. This approach was
considered important because it enables the GEF to demonstrate innovative approaches,
piloting high impact initiatives that foster replication and scaling up.
Regarding resource allocation, US$45 million will go to as an incentive for the country or
city level work (for a select number of countries, if national country chooses to utilize GEF
allocation on this topic) and US$10 million will be assigned to develop a common platform
and support coordination and knowledge management that would facilitate the scaling up and
replication of these projects. The latter includes a sustainability plan and a common set of
tools for cities.
1
Mr. Daniel Hoornweg, consultant for Sustainable Cities IAP, reflected on how cities have
become a center of consumption and driver of environmental degradation, but that give the
opportunity to develop a common and integrated approach for sustainable development. On
the analysis of cities, several approaches were highlighted, including the abatement costs
curve, the metabolism analysis and the urban ecosystems approach.
The discussion generated the following suggestions and insights:
a. Working with cities is different than working with national governments. It was
suggested that the co-benefits for cities should be highlighted, as it will increase the
interest of mayors and city leaders.
b. Consider short-term deliverables. In developing countries, frequent political
turnovers are a major barrier to long-term and large-scale urban infrastructure
investment. Having short-term deliverables will increase mayor’s support.
c. There is a disconnect between resources that go to national ministry to address urban
issues and resources that cities receive. The need for more direct financing for cities
was highlighted.
d. Avoid a top-down only approach and look for bottom-up support. The proposed
sustainability plan’s vision needs to be shared with the population, and mayors need
to utilize the platform to foster the vision.
e. Consider different sizes of cities. Several participants called for the inclusion of
medium- and small-sized cities and fast-growing cities in the Sustainable Cities IAP.
f. Have flexibility on the metropolitan approach. The participants suggested to carefully
consider the power and authority of metropolitan governments, as some might be
weak to implement measures.
g. Retain flexibility on partners. In some cases, sectorial authorities might facilitate work
at the local level, while in other cases there may be tension between the local and
national governments.
h. Common data might be difficult to obtain from cities. Some participants questioned
why the IAP has an emphasis on common data. The GEF noted this and considered
the need for some level of harmonization to enable learning beyond a specific case.
i. Consider cities that are not saturated with international cooperation. The GEF
responded by highlighting the need for global environmental benefits that maximize
the investments.
j. A common platform will be very useful for sharing experiences. For the consolidation
of data, there should be consultations with mayors.
k. Review link between urban and rural spheres. Cities depend on rural areas for the
food security.
Common global framework and potential for cooperation session (part I)
The session was moderated by Daniel Hoornweg, who discussed the need for a common
framework to help build sustainable cities.
Ms. Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio, Senior Associate Director of Urban Climate Change
Resilience Partnership, Rockefeller Foundation, gave a presentation that recalled the barriers
to access finance for cities. She suggested the GEF to look at the theory of change for cities,
and recommended investing in upstream tools that can unlock downstream outcomes for
cities. Furthermore, she advised the GEF to work with second-tier cities or fast growing cities
as the possibility for investing in resilience infrastructure is readily available.
2
Mr. Gino Van Begin, Secretary General of ICLEI, discussed the importance of socializing a
sustainability plan with a city’s population for its success. He suggested that GEF build on
existing city plans (e.g. land use plan) to have a holistic approach on cities that can be
implemented. Based on the experience of Local Agenda 21, he suggested that GEF measures
the success of city sustainable development policies.
Mr. Zach Tofias, Director of C40 Sustainable Communities Initiative and C40 Climate
Positive Development Program, discussed C40’s global network of cities that have
megacities and smaller cities working together on six working areas: energy, solid waste,
transportation, adaptation and resilience, sustainable communities and finance and economic
development. He stated that one of the main current challenges for cities is to access the
wanted technical support within the specific time frames of mayors.
Mr. Vijay Jagannathan, Senior Advisor of World Resources Institute (WRI), recalled the two
narratives for cities: one that focuses on the mitigation effects of city planning and climate
friendly investments and another narrative on risks that calls more the attention of citizens.
With the latter narrative, city political leaders understand the ideas and relevance/rationale to
act quickly. Emphasizing this narrative would be a good way to approach the city leaders.
Ms. Patricia McCarney, Director of World Council on City Data, presented the process and
challenges to the development of ISO37120 for cities. She highlighted that the geographic
boundaries do not match the administrative ones, that there are not standardized definitions
on what and how to measure and the lack of mechanism for data and knowledge sharing
across cities.
The discussion generated the following suggestions and insights:
a. Integrating science and knowledge generated about cities in the decision making
process.
b. Recognize different priorities of cities. Cities all have their competitive advantages
and disadvantages. Therefore their priorities are different.
c. Need to address the quality of indicators. While there are more consensuses on
climate change mitigation indicators and their quality, other indicators’ quality varies
considerably.
d. Introducing indicators in a sensitive manner. Consideration of economic issues, time
required and previous indicators was raised.
e. Engaging the private sector. Engaging private investors to replicate and enhance
scaling up was indicated as a priority.
f. Using existing plans. The GEF should utilize urban land-use plans that are available
instead of starting with planning from zero.
Common global framework and potential for cooperation session (part II)
The session started with remarks by Ms. Rosina Bierbaum, Chairperson of STAP, who
discussed proliferation of urban centers, their impact on the world’s environment and the
potential role of the GEF.
During the afternoon session, dialogue continued to provide feedback on the common
framework-platform and cooperation. The main points discussed include the following:
3
a. Addressing global environmental commons in an integrated way. STAP participants
mentioned that while GEF tackles environmental global commons, its work on cities
may allow foster environmental development in an integrated way for
transformational change in the long term.
i.
On this matter the World Bank supported the idea that the GEF has to
maximize their investments and a way forward is to trigger other investments
for sustainability of cities.
ii.
Some participants asked if adaptation measures would count as global
environmental benefits. Hence, it was suggested to revise the definition of
‘global environmental benefits’.
b. Collecting data. The importance of collecting information about the GEF outcomes
was highlighted.
i.
It was also mentioned that there should be a reasonable number of indicators,
and that these ones should have good quality.
c. Size of cities that need support. For the US context, it was mentioned that big cities
often have more capacities to think about resilience than small cities.
i.
UNDP mentioned that it is easier to work with smaller cities.
ii.
Some participants commented that larger cities may be more relevant for
replication and impact. Also, the limited resource availability may mean that
small investments in too many small cities may not amount to much.
d. Cities as an opportunity to encourage countries to make their nationally determined
contributions (NDCs). Cities have many opportunities to act and many are using their
opportunities, both in adaptation and in mitigation. These opportunities can be used as
building blocks for climate negotiations leading towards the Paris climate
negotiations in 2015.
e. Involving scientists with policymakers to discuss cities topics. It was suggested that
GEF could leverage its unique position to connect scientists with policymakers at
both the central and local levels.
f. Tailoring the message to include topics that are relevant for mayors. Fire, water and
safety are such relevant topics that may be used when approaching mayors.
i.
UNDP mentioned the importance of managing the cities expectations on the
process for sustainability.
ii.
WWF-US declared that a way forward is to have dialogues within cities that
help the process for a sustainability plan.
g. Eligibility criteria. Several participants suggested having flexibility on the eligibility
criteria for the pilot programs.
i.
Conservation International pointed out having a sustainability plan as a
criterion.
ii.
A competition element was suggested so cities could demonstrate how they
would achieve measurable results in a definite period.
iii. UNEP mentioned the process of the previous plans as criteria that would show
the relations between stakeholders and the openness for dialogue.
Attributes of candidate countries and cities session
Ms. Aoki presented the process for the Sustainable Cities IAP pilot, including the attributes
of the candidate countries and cities, as well as the commitment from the national and local
levels. Also, representatives from China, Mexico, and Senegal shared their perspectives.
The main points presented and discussed are as follows:
4
a. Ms. Tong Guichan, Division Director of International Cooperation, Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development, China, underlined the processes in China for
a new type of urbanization plan that matches the Sustainable City IAP. They also
supported the global platform as it would support the pilot programs and other cities
not participating by sharing knowledge and successful experiences.
Mr. Zhang Lei, Policy Officer of Ministry of Finance, China, highlighted China’s
strong support for GEF’s Sustainable Cities IAP and expressed China’s keen interest
in being part of the pilot.
b. Mr. Andres Flores Montalvo, Comisión Ambiental de la Megalópolis of Mexico, and
Ms. Gabriela Reyes Andres, a policy officer from Mexican Ministry of Energy
stressed the municipal level efforts in Mexico for an energy transition. They
mentioned the need for technical assistance and strategic and political communication
with the citizens, as environmental issues are not at the top of the political agenda.
c. Ms. Mariline Diara, Directrice de l'environnement, Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development, Senegal, and GEF Operational Focal Point stated that the
Sustainable City IAP would be very important for Dakar as it is an opportunity to do
more towards sustainability. They also stated the need to increase the population
awareness on sustainability.
d. Regarding the eligibility criteria, it was suggested to have criteria for setting up the
process: for example the potential of success and a baseline.
Day 2 (28 August 28 2014)
Discussion on Sustainable Cities IAP Announcement/Launch and Secretary General’s
Climate Summit
Ms. Kerry Constabile, Policy Officer of UN Secretary General’s Climate Change Support
Team, presented the UN Secretary’s General Climate Summit. She highlighted that the
meeting, without a negotiated outcome, aims to leave one year to reach the consensus by
fostering political momentum. It was also mentioned that the event will emphasize
subnational engagement.
Mr. Robert Kehew, Leader of Climate Change Planning Unit of UN Habitat, supported the
idea that the GEF could support and create opportunities at the global and regional levels that
would stimulate scaling up financial products for cities and urban areas. This would include
the facilitation for sharing knowledge and practices as well as exploring opportunities for
regulatory reforms. Mr. Kehew also introduced the mission and status of City Climate
Finance Alliance.
Mr. Gino Van Begin, Secretary General of ICLEI, reflected on the climate change
negotiation process and highlighted the role of cities to reduce GHG emissions. He endorsed
the Sustainable Cities IAP and called for supporting nations to adopt programs at the local
and urban spheres. He mentioned that a gap for cities in this arena is the data.
After the presentations a discussion followed focusing on these topics:
a. Green cities initiative. There is a platform for green cities that responds to the demand
of replicating what is working towards sustainability. Through this platform, cities
can partner with different financial institutions.
5
b. Strengthening institutional arrangement for cities. The need to strengthen institutional
arrangement was stressed to make cost-effective investments for climate resilience
infrastructure.
c. Finance for cities. There is a call (and possible announcement at the Climate Summit)
for international financial organizations to focus more on finance for cities.
d. Credit worthiness of cities. It was discussed the possible positive alignment of cities
with national institutions as the investments would be recognized and it would follow
the appropriate legal arrangements. It was also stated the importance for cities to be
credit-worthiness, which could be obtained by ISO 37120 standards.
Sustainable Cities IAP Modalities and Process
Ms. Xiaomei Tan, Climate Change Specialist of GEF, presented the proposed modalities for
the Sustainable Cities IAP, the process and timeline for the IAP development and
implementation. It is being considered that the IAP would have a programmatic approach,
with a lead agency and inter-agency team. There would be an IAP Steering Committee to
facilitate coordination.
Discussion focused on the following points:
a. GEF’s comparative advantage and unique ability. One key element that emerged
from the discussion is that GEF has a unique ability to bridge the national
governments and local governments. GEF also has an advantage in catalyzing
financing, which cities need, by linking plans/city level action with private and public
financiers.
b. Involving stakeholders. Suggestions were made to engage a variety of stakeholders
active in the area of the IAP to explore opportunities on the specific goals.
i.
Different levels of IAP engagement would follow depending on the cities’
readiness.
c. Steering committee. This committee would set rules and put forward a proposal that
includes the relevant criteria for selecting cities.
d. GEF Allocation. A participant suggested that a GEF allocation organogram is created
to help understand the roles and responsibilities.
e. Selection criteria. Further inputs for selecting cities were given:
i.
Cities could be selected by thematic issue. The GEF informed that the IAP
could not focus on a single sector as it aims to have a holistic approach and
that the GEF-6 Climate Change Mitigation focal area has a specific program
for urban interventions.
ii.
International indexes could be used to evaluate cities, as the Green Cities
Index.
Closing Remarks
Ms. Ishii asked for short feedback from all participants. Many participants expressed their
support for the integrated approach and the open process to solicit engagement. The
participants individually affirmed their intension to work closely with the GEF to provide
their inputs and advise.
Ms. Ishii expressed her appreciation to the participants’ cooperation and offers of help.
Furthermore, she acknowledged constructive suggestions on the attributes of programs,
program focus, and stated that they will be reflected in the program design. Key areas
identified include metrics, planning versus plan, and city size. She also reiterated GEF's
6
comparative advantage and unique ability as a partner of national governments to work
across local, national and international lines. GEF can also catalyze financing, which cities
need, by linking plans/city level action with private/public financiers.
Ms. Ishii closed the meeting stating the importance of working together to address cities’
challenges on the path for global environmental sustainability.
7