banco mundial 2011.climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor

7/28/2019 Banco Mundial 2011.Climate Change, Disaster Risk, And the Urban Poor

1/33

SUMMARY

Climate Change, Disaster Risand the Urban Poor

Cities Building Resiliencefor a Changing World


2/33

SUMMARY

Climate Change,Disaster Risk, andthe Urban Poor


3/33


4/33

SUMMARY

Climate Change,Disaster Risk, andthe Urban Poor

Cities Building Resiliencefor a Changing World

June 2011


5/33

2011 The International Bank or Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

1818 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20433

Telephone: 202-473-1000

Internet: www.worldbank.org

All rights reserved

First printing June 2011

This volume is a product o the sta o the International Bank or Reconstruction and

Development/The World Bank. The ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this

paper do not necessarily refect the views o the Executive Directors o The World Bank or the

governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy o the data included in this work. The

boundaries, colors, denominations, and other inormation shown on any map in this work do

not imply any judgement on the part o The World Bank concerning the legal status o anyterritory or the endorsement or acceptance o such boundaries.


6/33

v

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Overview 1

Vulnerable Cities: Assessing Climate Change and Disaster Risk in Urban Centers

o the Developing World 3

The Vulnerability o the Urban Poor 7

Building Resilience or the Urban Poor 11

Assessing risk at the city and community level to inorm decision making . . . . . . . . . .11

Integrating climate change and disaster risk reduction policies or the poor into

urban planning and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Strengthening institutional capacity to deliver basic services and reduce vulnerability

to climate and disaster risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Bridging communities and local governments to work together on local solutions . . .20

Opening new nance opportunities or cities to nance basic services and other

needs to address climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction . . . . . . . . . .21

Endnotes 24

Tables

1 Incremental Impacts o Climate Change and Natural Hazards on Urban

Systems and Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2a Summary o Main Findings o City Level Risk Assessments: Dar es Salaam

and Jakarta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2b Summary o Main Findings o City Level Risk Assessments: Mexico City

and So Paulo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6


7/33

vi Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor

3 Consequences o Risk Reduction Policies in Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4 Capacity Programs Aimed at Knowledge Sharing, Education, and Training or

Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18


8/33

vii

Acknowledgments

This study was prepared by a team led by Judy L. Baker, Lead Economist, World Bank. Key

contributions to the overall study and case studies were provided by Christa Anderson and

Catalina Ochoa. Background papers were prepared by Anthony Bigio and Stephane Hallegatte

(Planning, Policy, Synergies and Tradeos or Urban Risk Management, Climate Change

Adaptation and Poverty Reduction); JoAnne Carmin, Sabrina McCormick, Sai Balakrishnan,

and Eric Chu (Institutions and Governance in a Changing Climate: Implications or Service

Provision or the Urban Poor); Soumya Dharmavaram (Courting Hazards: Where the Urban

Poor Live); Ari Huhtala, Daniel Hoornweg and Marcus Lee (Climate Finance or Cities ),

Kristina Katich (Beyond Assessment: A Review o Global Best Practices Addressing Climate

Change and Disaster Risk Management or the Urban Poor, and The Impacts o Climate

Change and Disaster on Urban Services), David Satterthwaite (How Local Governments Can

Work with Communities in the Delivery o Basic Services). Background research was carried

out by Aarin Kidwai and Austin Kilroy.

The study was part o the work program o the Mayors Task Force on Climate

Change, Disaster Risk and Urban Poverty comprised o the Mayors o Dar es Salaam,

Jakarta, Mexico City and So Paulo and Mayor David Miller, ormer Mayor o Toronto

and ormer Head o C-40.

The preparation o city level case studies or Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Mexico City

and So Paulo were carried out as part o the work program with teams led by each city

government. From the World Bank, these studies were led by Eric Dickson (Mexico City)

with Gisela Campillo, Marcus Lee and Peter Ellis (Jakarta), Federica Ranghieri and Andre

Herzog (So Paulo and Dar es Salaam). Each o the case studies has resulted in an indi-

vidual report which acknowledges the extensive teams involved in their preparation. We

are grateul or the considerable nancial support and insight provided by WBICC to the

Mayors Task Force work.

Peer Reviewers include Margaret Arnold, Uwe Deichmann, and Abhas Jha. Helpul

comments were also received by David Miller, Glen Pearce-Oroz, Apurva Sanghi, and team

members listed above.


9/33

viii Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor

The work is a joint eort by the Finance, Economics and Urban Department and the

World Bank Institute with support rom Cities Alliance and the Global Facility or Disaster

Risk Reduction. The Study was carried out under the overall guidance o Zoubida Allaoua,

Marianne Fay, Abha Joshi-Ghani, Christine Kessides, and Konrad von Ritter.


10/33

1

Overview

For those that live in slums in cities throughout the developing world, the daily challenges o

accessing sae and reliable drinking water, proper sanitation acilities, transport services to

commute to and rom work, regular solid waste collection, and health and education services

can be enormous. These challenges are increasingly exacerbated by the impacts o climate

change and natural hazards. Residents, especially the poor, are increasingly exposed to the

impacts o landslides, sea level rise, fooding and other hazards, increasing risks in already

vulnerable communities and impacting health and the spread o disease, livelihoods, and the

very limited assets o the poor.

This is the reality in city ater city around the developing world. But that reality does

not have to be destiny. A set o broad actions as outlined here can help build resilience or

those at greatest risk in cities. Implementing these will involve a strong commitment by local

governments working with communities, as well as national and international institutions.

This summary provides an overview o the report on Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and

the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience or a Changing World. It is part o a broader e-

ort under the Mayors Task Force on Climate Change, Disaster Risk and the Urban Poor that

was launched at the Mayors Summit in Copenhagen in 2009. The Task Force is comprised

o the Mayors o Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Mexico City and So Paulo who have recognized

the importance o these issues in their cities and demonstrated strong support. The three key

objectives o the Task Force include: i) better understanding the links among climate change,

disaster risk and the urban poor; ii) identiying good practice examples where resilience o

the urban poor has been improved; and iii) proposing policy and investment programs or

scaling up eorts to reduce risk or the urban poor. This World Bank global report, as well

as case studies in the our member cities, has been carried out to better understand climate

change and disaster risks or the urban poor, and orm the basis or developing strategies to

address those risks.

The report highlights the ollowing main messages:


11/33

2 Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor

The urban poor are on the ront line. The poor are particularly vulnerable to climate

change and natural hazards due to where they live within cities, and the lack o reliable

basic services.

City governments are the drivers or addressing risks through ensuring basic services.

Local governments play a vital role in nancing and managing basic inrastructure and

service delivery or all urban residents. Basic services are the rst line o deense against

the impacts o climate change and natural hazards.

City ofcials build resilience by mainstreaming risk reduction into urban manage-

ment. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can be best addressed and

sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management

practices. Good practice examples exist and can be replicated in cities around the world.

Signifcant fnancial support is needed. Local governments need to leverage existing

and new resources to meet the shortalls in service delivery and basic inrastructure

adaptation.


12/33

3

1Vulnerable Cities: Assessing Climate Changeand Disaster Risk in Urban Centers o theDeveloping World

Urbanization has brought tremendous opportunity to many, and will continue to do so at

an unprecedented pace throughout the developing world. Cities are centers o economic

activity, innovation, and wealth. They attract migrants in search o better jobs, services and

prospects or improved living conditions. While many who come are poor, they represent

an enormous contribution to a citys economy through employment in manuacturing,

services, and other sectors

As some 70 million people in the developing world move to urban areas each year, cities

are increasingly stretched to provide urban inrastructure, services, and sae land. Some one

billion people already live in slums, and this is projected to double by 2030.1

Further exacerbating this challenge, are the risks associated with climate-related and

natural hazards. Cities are particularly vulnerable due to the high concentration o people

and economic assets, and in many cases, their hazard-prone location in coastal areas, along

rivers, and in seismic zones. Risks are especially high in low- and middle-income countries

where a third to one-hal o the population in cities lives in slums. Rising sea levels, storm

surges, earthquakes, foods and droughts have enormous impacts in urban areas and are

likely to intensiy over time.

A number o studies have been carried out to estimate the magnitude o urban expo-

sure to natural hazards and climate impacts. While each uses a dierent approach, covering

dierent sets o cities, dierent types o hazards, dierent time rames, and dierent asset

measurements, all conrm that such risk is increasing and that with the increasing changes in

climate, risk will signicantly rise in the coming decades.

The impacts on urban residents as well as urban systems, including the built environment

and ecosystems, are signicant. In addition to the well-known disaster impacts o natural

hazards such as destruction o inrastructure and loss o lives, natural hazards and climate

change incur a wide range o less obvious incremental impacts on urban systems and resi-

dents (see table 1). Based on historical data (20022010), the number o recorded events was

highest or fooding (1501), ollowed by storm and cyclones (899), earthquake (228), ex-


13/33


treme temperature (173), mass movement (landslides, subsidence, avalanche (167)), drought

(133), wildre (101), volcano (53), storm surge (25) and Tsunami (19).2

The case studies in Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Mexico City and So Paulo carried out as

part o this report are illustrative o the vulnerability and adaptive capacity that cities are

acing. Tables 2a and 2b summarize the key issues or each city. It is evident that the our

cities are very diverse, conronting dierent types o challenges. That being said, in all our

cities, it is those living in inormal settlements that are ound to be most vulnerable to

climate-related and disaster risk.

Table 1

Incremental Impacts o Climate Change and Natural Hazards on Urban Systems and Residents

Incremental impacts on urban systems Impacts on urban residents

Built environment

Stress on building oundations

Road washouts

Changing disease vectors

Stress on stormwater and sewage systems

Stress on water treatment systems

Disruption to shipping and ports

Increased energy demand

Increased road surace damage

Increased demand or water

Natural environment

Coastal erosion, altered ecosystems and wetlands

Salinization o water sources

Slope instability

Groundwater depletion

Reduction in greenspace and growing conditions includingurban agriculture

Changes in sh populations

Increased runo contamination

Increase heat island eect

Increased air pollution

Illness: heat stress, stroke, malnutrition, water borne disease,

asthma, physical and mental disability Exposure to elements rom substandard construction

Disruption o basic service provision and access to supplies

Housing instability

Property loss and relocation

Loss o livelihoods

Community ragmentation

Exposure to food-related toxins and wastes

Disruption in availability o potable water, ood, and othersupplies

Water shortages

Food shortages; Higher ood prices

Disruptions o electricity

Source: Adapted rom Carmin and Zhang, 2009; Dickson, et al., 2010; Dodman and Satterthwaite, 2008; Wilbanks, et al., 2007


14/33

Vulnerable Cities 5

Table 2a

Summary o Main Findings o City Level Risk Assessments: Dar es Salaam and Jakarta

Dar es Salaam Jakarta

Ov

erview

Pop

ulation 2.5millionin1590km

2

Between48%annualpopulationgrowth

9.6millioninthemetroareain650km2

250,000immigratetoJakartayearly

Thevulnerabilityoftheurban

poor

Hazards,vulnerability,

andbasicservices

Main hazards: heavy rainall, fooding, droughts

70%percentofDaresSalaamspopulationlivesinpoor, unplanned settlements; human developmentindicators very low

Basicinfrastructureisverylow;accesstocleanwaterandsanitationisamajorproblem;lessthan60%ofthe road network is paved

Drainage channels are regularly blocked, causinghouses to be fooded by sewage-based wastewatercausing water borne diseases

Main hazards are water management and foodcontrol.About40%ofthecityisbelowsealevel.

Regular fooding aects city throughout the yearwith impacts on trac, damage to homes andeconomic losses

There is currently no city-wide solid waste-management plan or Jakarta

Poorest live close to river banks, canals, drainageareas.

Buildingresiliencefor

theurbanpoor

Achievements

The government is identiying all properties ininormal settlements in Dar es Salaam and issuingland/property licenses or right o occupancy to

improve security o tenure, which could be used ascollateral or economic empowerment

Signicant slum upgrading program is alsounderway

Large-scale adaptation inrastructure projects beingdeveloped including: Jakarta Coastal Deense toprotect rom tidal surges, and Jakarta Urgent Flood

Mitigation Plan Innovative early warning systems via SMS at the

urban ward level inorm people o upcoming foods

Challenges

Disaster risk management has largely been ignoredand needs to be integrated in all aspects o urbanplanning in Dar es Salaam

Limited capacity in city planning departments toassess the long-term sectoral impacts o climatechange or the city

Adaptation plans to cope with extreme weatherevents and sea level rise are not coordinated acrossmultiple agencies

Lack o comprehensive disaster risk managementprogram or disaster response plan or the City oJakarta

Source:CityLevelRiskAssessments,MayorsTaskForce.


15/33


Table 2b

Summary o Main Findings o City Level Risk Assessments: Mexico City and So Paulo

Mexico City So Paulo

Overview

Population 21.2millioninthemetroareain4250km

2

3%annualpopulationgrowthrate

19.7millionmetroareain2140km2

Increasing population in the periphery withhousehold incomes three times lower than cityaverage

Th

evulnerabilityoftheurbanpoor

Hazards,vulnerability,

andbasicservices

High seismic risk, no natural drainage or runorom the surrounding mountains, and vulnerable tofooding. Regularly aected by severe storms, heatwaves and droughts

Projections estimate rise in mean temperature by23Cbyendofthiscentury;extremeprecipitationepisodes expected to increase

By2015waterconsumptionrateswillincreaseby20%comparedto2000levels

Inrastructure and public services are stretched thin

Citysgenerationofgarbageisincreasingatarateof5%/year

15%ofthepopulationisrankedwithhighlevelofhousing and population vulnerability

Main hazards include heavy rains, fooding,landslides and washouts

13%ofthepopulationareconsideredashavinghigh or very high social vulnerability

Over85%ofhighriskhouseholds(890,000)arelocated in slums across the city

Morethan5%ofslumareasarehighlypronetobeaected by destructive events

52%ofhouseholdsinslumsarewithoutaccesstosanitationfacilitiesand33%ofhouseholdsinslumswithout access to paved roads close to their homes

20%ofsewagelackspropertreatment

Buildin

gresilience

forthe

urbanpoor

Achievements

First city in Latin America to introduce a localclimate action strategy to reduce emissions by sevenmillion MT between 2008 and 2012

Strategyispartofa15-yearplanwherecityisinvestingUS$1billionayear(9%oftheyearlybudget)on:landconservation,publicspaces,airpollution, waste management and recycling, watersupply and sanitation, transportation and mobility

The So Paulo Agenda 2012 and the MunicipalClimate Law sets out targets by sector to be takenby the municipality, private actors and other publicbodies

Risky areas or landslides are already identied andgeo-reerenced by the municipality, allowing theprioritization o adaptation actions

Major slum upgrading eorts based on socialvulnerability index and incidence o areas subjectto landslidesThe So Paulo Agenda 2012 and theMunicipal Climate Law sets out targets by sectorto be taken by the municipality, private actors andother public bodies

Risky areas or landslides are already identied andgeo-reerenced by the municipality, allowing theprioritization o adaptation actions

Major slum upgrading eorts based on socialvulnerability index and incidence o areas subject tolandslides

Challenges

Disaster risk in Mexico City is primarily handled in areactive manner and limited preventative measureshave been implemented

Evident need to improve the sharing o inormationamong the relevant government agencies

Additional eorts are needed to increase coverageo sewage system and avoid illegal disposal osewage into water courses

Mitigate risks in food and landslide prone areas andconsider relocating amilies where mitigation provesnot to work

Source:CityLevelRiskAssessments,MayorsTaskForce.


16/33

7

2The Vulnerability o the Urban Poor

The urban poor living in slumsnow estimated at approximately one billion peopleare

at particularly high risk rom the impacts o climate and natural hazards in large part due

to where they live. As cities grow, land becomes scarcer and thus more expensive. The

choice o where to live is driven by a series o tradeos between what is aordable, prox-

imity to income earning opportunities, and where individuals may have social networks

and kinship ties. The areas that are aordable to the poor are typically on hazard-prone

lands, in areas that are deemed undesirable to others. They are also oten inormal settle-

ments with insecure tenure.

People in low-income neighborhoods are made even more vulnerable by overcrowded

living conditions, the lack o adequate inrastructure and services, unsae housing, inad-

equate nutrition and poor health. These conditions can easily turn a natural hazard into a

disaster, with impacts including the loss o basic services, damage or destruction o homes,

reduction or loss o livelihoods, the rapid spread o water- and vector-borne diseases, dis-

ability, and loss o lie.

The impacts o natural hazards and climate change can vary substantially with impor-

tant distinction in spatial and location characteristics. For example, inner city slums which

are typically located in the historic core o a city and are highly dense, such as in Delhi,

Dhaka, Cairo and Istanbul, ace risks due to the dilapidated condition o structures, over-

crowded conditions, and diculty in evacuating and getting services, including emergency

vehicles through narrow roads.3 Peri-urban slums such as in many cities in Latin America

and elsewhere may ace other challenges such as poor services, haphazard layout, drainage

problems, limited accessibility and proximity to environmental hazards.

For the poor, it is oten the more requently occurring low or moderate intensity events

such as localized fooding and res that have the most signicant impact. In Katmandu,

Nepal, rapidly growing squatter settlements are located along the banks o the citys three

rivers on steep slopes. Because there is no solid waste collection services, waste is regularly

thrown in the rivers. The existing stormwater and sewage networks operate at only 40 per-

cent o their capacity because they are blocked by sludge and debris. During the monsoon


17/33


season, approximately 25 percent o the households there food regularly due to inadequate

drainage. These residents are also susceptible to water-borne diseases that then go untreated

because o the lack o aordable medical treatment.4

In Dhaka, Bangladesh, the situation is similar. Only 10 percent o slum dwellers have su-

cient drainage to avoid waterlogging during heavy rains.5 In most low income settlements,

the existence o open drains results in accumulated garbage, preventing drainage systems

rom working during heavy rains. Where there is insucient drainage, stagnant foodwater

provides an ideal breeding ground or parasites and mosquitoes, which may lead to an in-

crease in malaria and other vector-transmitted diseases.

Other issues such as tenure security, employment and nancial insecurity and social

networks also aect the sensitivity o the urban poor to climate change and disaster risk. The

lack o tenure hampers investments in services and housing improvements. The urban poor

rely on the inormal sector or their income and thus they have limited access to ormal saety

nets. Strong social networks are important or some communities where residents work to-

gether to build resilience at the local level.

Traditionally vulnerable individuals and communities have managed risk through ad hoc

coping mechanisms that draw on their local knowledge o hazards and community resources.

In slums where social networks and kinship ties are stronger, communities tend to be more

resilient. Older communities tend to have stronger social networks than newer settlements

where residents may be more transient. Active internal leadership in close-knit communities

can organize relie and rehabilitation more eectively and eciently. This is especially the

case or ast-onset events that require temporary relocation; at these times residents rely on

their existing social capital and existing networks.

In Mombasa, Kenya and Esteli, Nicaragua one study shows that the asset that the poor

value and tend to protect the most during extreme events is their house.6 Other important

assets were businesses and electrical appliances. The study also ound that the majority o the

households were resourceul at developing resilience measures (e.g. 91% o the households

implement some kind o adaptation action beore a severe weather event, 100% during the

event, and 91% ater the event).

Furthermore, the study revealed that the most critical dimension o vulnerability o the

poor was weak or unclear tenure rights, and that owner occupiers tend to invest more re-

sources in adaptation measures than tenants, especially in reinorcing the house structure

beore heavy rains.

Access to sae shelter, water, sanitation, proper drainage, and reliable solid waste re-

moval, transport, roads and public health services remains an elusive goal or many o the

urban poor. Cities typically do not have the resources or capacity to keep up with the growing

needs o service provision. Issues o inormality urther exacerbate the challenges given that

many governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector are re-

luctant to invest in areas without secure tenure as they perceive this as risky. There is also a

perception that the urban poor are unable to pay or basic services, yet in many cities, the

urban poor pay more than the non-poor as they have to rely on expensive delivery systems.

With poor basic services, the eects o climate related and natural hazard risk can turn

a heavy rain into a disastrous food with the spread o disease. Destruction or damage to

inrastructure can lead to water scarcity or contamination. Lack o access to sae housing


18/33

The Vulnerability o the Urban Poor 9

with good provision or water, sanitation, health care and education aects the capacity o

slum residents to recover.

Many o the impacts o climate change and natural hazards on the urban poor are most

notable in the area o risks to public health. Exposure to changing weather patterns in tem-

perature, precipitation, sea-level rise and more requent extreme events (such as earthquakes

and landslides) have direct consequences or peoples health: morbidity and mortality. Many

communicable diseases are highly sensitive to changing temperatures and precipitation.

These include vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue and water-borne diseases

such as diarrhea and cholera. The pathogens that cause these diseases thrive in poor living

conditions typically ound in slums. Worse, their impact is also likely to be more severe in

populations with pre-existing burden o disease.7

There are also indirect consequences rom climate change and natural hazards on health

via exposure to declining water, air and ood quality, alterations in ecosystems, agriculture,

industry and settlements and the economy (such as migration and poverty), and eects on

ood security. To complicate things urther, this direct and indirect exposure also has short

and long term implications or human health. For instance, a landslide not only kills people,

but also leaves some people physically and mentally disabled or the rest o their lives.


19/33


20/33

11

3Building Resilience or the Urban Poor

The challenges o service delivery in slums outlined above are not new, however, the risks

rom changes in climate and increasing exposure to natural hazards accentuate the growing

urgency in proactively addressing them. There is much accumulated experience in eorts to

improve living conditions or the urban poor, yet many cities have not been able to achieve

these goals largely due to the pace o urbanization, ineective policies, resource constraints,

lack o political will and weak capacity.

This report underscores several recommended actions based on experience to help cities

build resilience or those at greatest risk. These recommendations are rooted in the need

or strong institutions or better urban planning and management, and sustainable urban

policies that consider the positive and negative outcomes o the dicult decisions which city

ocials must make.

In implementing these actions, it is city governments that are the drivers or addressing

risks, through the provision o public inrastructure, delivery o basic services and main-

streaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into urban planning and

management practices. Such investments will have the biggest impact when implemented in

partnership with communities that have much to contribute to the process.

Assessing risk at the city and community level to inorm decision making

The case studies carried out as part o this report have demonstrated the importance o

understanding hazards, socioeconomic and institutional risks or any city as an important

rst step to developing adaptation and disaster risk reduction plans. A risk assessment

can defne the nature o risks, answer questions about characteristics o potential hazards,

and identiy vulnerabilities o communities and potential exposure to given hazard events.

Risk evaluation helps in the prioritization o risk measures, giving due consideration to

the probability and impact o potential events, the cost eectiveness o the measures and

resource availability.


21/33


Relevant and up to date inormation can allow all stakeholders to assess risk and make

inormed policy and investment decisions. Such inormation will aect zoning, property

markets, location choices and adaptation investments. Investing in regular data collection is

necessary or monitoring changes over time and continually updating risk reduction plans.

Mapping inormal settlements can be a rst step to assessing risk or the urban poor. In a

growing number o communities, the poor themselves are carrying out this work. In Cuttack,

India, community-driven data gathering includes the preparation o digital maps at the city

scale or city authorities with input rom an NGO.8 The work begins with residents mapping

their communities with a GPS device, commenting on boundaries and characteristics (risk pro-

le, services, etc.) that help the visiting NGO team understand the settlement. Points marked

with the GPS are uploaded to Google Earth and when aggregated into a city-wide map, provide

the location and boundaries o all inormal settlements, as well as their risk prole.

The process o carrying out a risk assessment can be equally as important as the results.

The experiences rom the Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Mexico City, and So Paulo cases point to

a ew lessons:

i) High level support rom the mayors and heads o key agencies was essential to giv-

ing priority and support to the work. Working level ocal points were key to ensur-

ing accountability and getting the work done.

ii) In all o the cities, an inter-agency working group was set up to carry out the risk

assessments. This included agencies working on urban development, service provi-

sion, poverty reduction, disaster management and climate change. In some cases, this

was the rst time these agencies worked together which created synergies or a more

integrated and comprehensive risk assessment and began the process or adapta-

tion planning. However, it is unclear that these inter-agency working groups will be

sustained without a more ormal working arrangement.

iii) In some o the cities, there was a big disconnect between knowledge at the institu-

tional and community level. This was addressed by involving city ocials in site

visits to poor neighborhoods, and in two cases, involving stakeholders in the work-

shops. Communicating in a language that all stakeholders could understand was

undamental. In that regard, producing materials in a simple ormat and local lan-

guage was important or communicating results. In Jakarta and Mexico City, short

lms have been produced or broad dissemination o key messages.

iv) Across the our cities, accessing data, maps, and climate projections was problematic.

Inormation is scattered across many dierent agencies, departments, organizations,

and research institutions, with some reluctant to share data. Enormous eort went

into collecting the inormation that was made available. To benet rom and sustain

this eort, setting up a permanent institutional home to maintain and update this

inter-agency inormation in each city would be benecial or any uture work.

v) The risk assessments were perceived as a useul ramework or understanding cli-

mate change, disaster risk and impacts on residents. The multidimensional approach

to assessing hazards, socioeconomic and institutional risks brought together key

issues in a comprehensive way. This was, however, ound to be only the rst step.

Stakeholder workshops held in all o the cities were useul in discussing key issues,


22/33


but ollow up will be needed to integrate these ndings into adaptation and risk

reduction planning across city agencies.

Integrating climate change and disaster risk reduction policies or the poor into

urban planning and management

Better urban planning and management is imperative to reducing disaster risk and climate

change impacts on the urban poor. Policies to mitigate such risks have links to multiple

sectors and thus can come with important synergies. For example, urban policies can be de-

signed to be pro-poor with positive impacts on poverty reduction policies. Similarly policies

can be designed to have co-benets with climate change mitigation policy goals. Such policy

choices also, however, come with tradeos and oten dicult decisions. The outcomes o

policy choices will have both positive and negative consequences that decision makers must

careully weigh.

Urban systems have long time scales and physical orm cannot be changed easily, thus

decisions made now will have impacts or decades to come. This is due to i) the long lie

span o urban inrastructure and buildings, which can be as much as one hundred years or

more or high value buildings, bridges, or water systems; and ii) the location decisions o

inrastructure and buildings typically goes well beyond their lie span. For example, when

railways reach their replacement time, they are almost always replaced at the same location.

In the same way, new urban development is a somewhat irreversible choice as it is economi-

cally and politically dicult to relocate people.

The policy area that is most instrumental is land use planning and management. As cities

in developing countries grow, they oten expand into marginal areas such as food plains, water

catchments, and steep hillsides. Poor urban planning and management policies exacerbate

this. At the city scale, there is a need or land use planning to consider food, seismic, and

other hazard zones when determining where new development should be permitted. Ecient

transport systems can increase land supply in new areas by enabling access and mobility, thus

reducing incentives to develop in vulnerable locations. Preventing building and settlements in

high risk areas can save lives and prevent destruction. A ramework or the regularization o

land tenure, including partial or incremental solutions, can spawn investments and encourage

improvements in inrastructure. Proactive policies aimed at the prevention o new slums which

may involve changes in the legal and regulatory ramework and draw on lessons o the past

experiences with sites and services projects can help to curtail the rapid growth o new slums

on vulnerable lands. In some cases, governments and municipalities would acquire land or

block-level inrastructure rights o way around the peripheries o rapidly growing cities.

Table 3 outlines some o the policy choices and actions cities can consider when ad-

dressing climate change, disaster risk and the urban poor, along with the positive co-benets

and possible negative consequences o each. From an operational perspective, governments

must make these policy choices in the context o broader priorities which include quality

o lie or city residents, economic competitiveness and attractiveness or investors, other

environmental goals such as greenhouse gas emissions and protection o natural areas, public

health and social concerns such as equity and social capital.


23/33


Table 3

Consequences o Risk Reduction Policies in Urban Areas

Risk reduction policy Actions Positive co-beneftsPotential negative

consequences

1 Protection or many areasagainst extensive risk (versusew areas against intensiverisk)

Investments in basic servicessuch as water, sanitation,waste, drainage, transportin poor areas

Investments in earlywarning systems, insuranceschemes

Regulations to mitigateincreases in exposurethrough land-use planning,zoning and building norms

Delay large, costly,investments againstextreme events such asdrainage, urban transportand buildings

Large quality o lie benetsrom improved basicservices

Most cost-eective givenmajority o risks or urbanpoor are extensive

Improvements in cityeconomy rom increasesin productivity andcompetitiveness

Reduction in overall riskrom requent events

Reductions in local air andwater pollution

Large health co-benets

Improvements in socialequity rom pro-poorinvestments

Increase in vulnerability tothe most extreme events

Increase in population andasset risk

2 In-situ upgrading in at-riskinormal settlements (versusrelocation to saer areas)

Investments in basicservices in at-risk inormalsettlements

Avoid more costlyinvestments in dykes anddrainage systems

Avoid relocation to newareas(couldbecost-neutral)

Similar benets as listed in1.

Residents may benet romlocation choice close to jobsand services

Avoid new urbanization,and reduce urban sprawland destruction opreserved areas.

Avoid negative socialimpacts o relocationprograms(lossofjobs,social

networks,culture)

Investments may urtherattract people to high riskareas and increase thepopulation and assets at risk

Increase in vulnerability toextreme events

Poor population investmentsmade at risk o extremeweather events; Risk opoverty trap i disasters toorequent

3 Zoning to preventoccupation o at-risk areas

Regulations to preventdevelopment, investmentsand hosing in at-risk areas.

Reduction in overall risk andpotential losses

Decrease in population andassetatrisk(i.e.,smallerlikelihood o large-scaledisasters with signicanteffects)

Avoid negative healtheects rom occupyingunsae or polluted land

Protect mainly pooresthouseholds which generallyoccupy the most at-riskareas

Decrease in overall availableland, increase in landpressure, general increasein housing and oce-spaceprices in the city

Possible accelerationo urban sprawl; soilconsumption and water-proong; loss in naturalareas and biodiversity;competition with agriculture

May increase travel distancesin the city and commutingtimes

Environmental concerns rom

additional mobility needsand energy consumption

Perverse incentive oattracting illegal settlementsin no-building zones


24/33


Table 3

Consequences o Risk Reduction Policies in Urban Areas

Risk reduction policy Actions Positive co-beneftsPotential negative

consequences

4 Develop new, less riskyland with efcient transport

Investinurbaninrastructure and basicservices in new areas

Investinnewtransportationnetworks which areecient and aordable(train,metro,dedicatedbusline,highways)

Creation o new urbanarea with provision obasic services and highaccessibility

Increase in available land,reduction in land pressure,and general reductionin housing prices in thecity; development andcompetitiveness benets.

Reduced pressure tourbanize at-risk areas(ood,landslide,subsidence)incitycenters;reduction in overall risk andaverage losses

Avoid undesireddevelopment in naturalareas and ecosystem losses

Improve access to adequatehousing and basic services;poverty reduction benets

Increased car use, energyconsumption, local and noisepollution and congestionparticularly i based onindividual-vehicle transport

Environmental concernsrom additional energyconsumption

High cost o newinfrastructure(transportandotherservices)

Accelerated urban sprawlwith higher cost to providepublic services; possiblehigher property taxes

Additional soil water-proong, increased run-oand possible increase infood risks.

Accelerated urban sprawl;loss in natural areas andbiodiversity; competitionwith agriculture

Risk or the poor to berelocated causing socialsegregation

5 Promote denseurbanization

Containment policies thatdetermine where growthcan and cannot happen

Modal shit to publictransport yields reductionsin noise and trac

Lower cost o providingpublicservices(water

and sanitation, electricity,education,health)

Gain in competitivenessthrough reduced energyexpenditures and lowertaxes

Higher density acilitateszoning to avoiddevelopment in at-risk areas

Reduce mobility needs andenergy consumption

Reduced urban sprawl andprotected natural areas;increased competition withagriculture.

Improved social equity

through reducingsegregation

Reduced access to housing,dwelling size

Reduction in available landor construction, increase inconstruction costs, increase

in housing prices in thecity; possible reduction incompetitiveness

Potentially larger urbanheat island and largervulnerability to heat waves

Possible increase in naturalhazard risk i containmentland-use plans do not controlor additional density infood-prone or landslideareas

(continued)


25/33


To help with prioritization and decision making, robust, multi-criteria decision-making

tools can be useul. This approach can be used to ensure that any given policy, has no un-

acceptable consequences or stakeholders. The approach helps build policy mixes that are

robust in most possible uture scenarios. The application o robust decision making strategies

can be a lengthy process, requiring the involvement o many stakeholders including city o-

cials, multiple agencies, private developers and community residents. The process o such

decision making, however, can help stakeholders assess their own choices towards higher

resilience and lower vulnerability.

New York City has completed a city-wide adaptation plan, as well as comprehensive sus-

tainability plan and update to that plan.9 The plans use spatial planning in conjunction with

risk mapping to understand and regulate how the city will be aected by climate change.

The process included extensive public engagement. In the case o New York, unlike in many

other cities, planning ocuses on improvement o current buildings, building codes, and the

strategic placement o public acilities, rather than guiding outward urban expansion. The

plan calls or a community-based approach to deal with the most vulnerable communities.

As a response, the city is now also working on site-specic adaptation plans through a com-

munity planning process with stakeholder groups.

Jakartas plan or 20102030 calls or incorporating risk reduction activities into

long-term spatial planning or the city.10 Such approaches include restoration o mangrove

orests, improvement in public acilities and mass transit, renement o building and en-

vironmental regulations that consider hazard risk, redesign o technology and engineering

in disaster areas, and improvements o provision o open space or anticipated increases in

intense rainall.

In three cities in Vietnam, Dong Hoi, Can Tho, and Hanoi, local governments have

extended the work o risk assessment to a second phase in resilience planning, completing a

Local Resilience Action Plan (LRAP).11 This includes not only a vulnerability assessment and

spatial planning, but also an inventory o planned capital investments and policy changes

to address high-risk areas, gap analysis, and a multi-stakeholder priority-setting based on

comparison o alternatives in light o limited budgets and undraising prospects. The LRAP

identies short, medium, and long-term adaptation priorities or project investment with

specic costs, timelines, and responsible actors. In the case o Can Tho, the outcomes o the

LRAP process are currently being integrated into local urban planning eorts.

Other good examples where adaptation plans are being integrated into urban planning

include Boston, Cape Town, Ho Chi Minh City, London, Quito, Rotterdam, and Toronto.12

At a minimum, these cities have identied risk-prone areas and through urban planning

discouraged new construction in these areas.

Strengthening institutional capacity to deliver basic services and reduce vulnerabil-

ity to climate and disaster risk

Cities have a range o institutional structures and capacity or dealing with service delivery,

disasters, and climate change. The institutions that are typically involved with the response

and management o disasters include departments o public health, security, police, re and

those that serve vulnerable populations like the elderly and young. Plans oten provide a


26/33


structure through which departments communicate with one another and many cities pre-

pare by running simulations.

The institutional arrangements to cope with and plan or climate change, particularly

adaptation, are somewhat less developed as it is a relatively new eld o policy and planning.

Furthermore, the institutional structures or delivering services to the urban poor have the

longest history, yet in many cities they are weak. A major constraint has been capacity as

local governments struggle with inadequate stang, technical skills or nancial resources.

This is urther complicated in many places by the lack o legal tenure which means that gov-

ernments are reluctant or unable to invest in services in inormal areas.

In the absence o strong ormal institutions, inormal institutions such as NGOs and

community-based organizations (CBOs) play an important role in responding to the needs o

the urban poor. In many cities they address gaps in service delivery, and at times are the rst

responders in disaster events. In Mombasa, local religious organizations are recognized as

key players when extreme events occur and acilitate evacuation, emergency relie assistance

and provisional shelter. The earthquake in Haiti in 2010 saw the emergence o volunteer

technology communities who mobilized through the Global Watch Observation Catastrophe

Assessment Network (GEO-CAN) to develop a comprehensive and rigorous damage analysis

to assist with relie and recovery eorts.13

There are also numerous examples where progress has been made in addressing risks

or the poor through slum upgrading programs, service delivery improvements in slums,

emergency warning systems, and other initiatives. Such eorts were implemented with strong

political commitment, community participation, and institutional support.

In Dar es Salaam, the local government has successully implemented the Community

Inrastructure Upgrading Program which has targeted unplanned areas in three municipali-

ties.14 Through a structured process communities have prioritized technical improvements

in roads, drains and public toilets. The new community inrastructure allows sae access

to homes on a regular and emergency basis, and improved drainage dramatically decreases

fooding in the aected areas.

A relatively well-known eort in Pakistan through the Orangi Pilot Project Research and

Training Institute supports local governments as well as slum dwellers in building capacity

or the planning, implementation and nancing o basic sanitation provisionat ar lower

costs than government built inrastructurewhich have brought major benets to large sec-

tions o the urban poor in more than 300 communities in Karachi.

There are also a number o good examples o disaster planning and climate adaptation

planning. For example, plans in Istanbul, Ho Chi Minh and Cape Town have identied

risk-prone areas and discourage new construction in these areas.15 They have called or the

resettlement o communities in the most risk-prone areas, in addition to improved construc-

tion and regulation o low income and inormal housing.

Saety nets can be critical in building resilience or the urban poor as well as in post-

disaster recovery. Saety nets have traditionally ocused on the chronic poor through targeted

cash transers, both conditional and unconditional, workare programs, and in-kind trans-

ers. In Bangladesh, under the National Disaster Management Prevention Strategy, an early

warning system triggered saety nets in response to Cyclone Sidr in 2007. 16 The program

began distributing cash, rice and house building grants even beore the main impacts o the

cyclone were elt.


27/33


Programs can be designed to also assist at-risk households and communities to help

people cope with hazard risk. For example, social unds, community-driven development

and slum upgrading programs can be designed to support adaptation and risk reduction in

low income communities by scaling up their work on actions most relevant or creating re-

silience such as improving drainage, water supply and sanitation, and setting up community-

maintenance programs. Indonesias National Community Empowerment Program (PNPM)

which currently operates in all urban areas o the country, nances investments in food

prevention, water retention and storage acility and slope stabilization to prevent landslides

as well as building emergency evacuation routes.

Such programs have been instrumental in post-disaster recovery as well. In Indonesia,

eorts were rapidly mobilized ollowing the disasters in Aceh (2004 Tsunami), Yogyakarta

and Central Java (2006 Earthquake) and most recently in Central Java (2010 Mt. Merapi

eruption) via community-driven development programs. On the very day the government

says it is sae or residents to return to their neighbourhoods, trained acilitators that are

already working in the communities are available to work with beneciaries in identiying

needs, preparing community settlement plans and allocating block grants. The key is to

Table 4

Capacity Programs Aimed at Knowledge Sharing, Education, and Training or Urban Resilience

Agency/program Capacity building

AfricanCentreforCities(ACC) Interdisciplinary research and teaching program or sustainable urbanization in Arica

C-40 Establishing activity-specic sub committees which include city resilience planning andocus on the unique needs o port cities

International City/County ManagementCouncil(ICMA)

Provides knowledge-based assistance in disaster mitigation and preparedness orvulnerable communities, and recovery and restoration o basic municipal services

International Institute or EnvironmentandDevelopment(IIED)CapacityStrengthening o Least DevelopingCountries or Adaptation to ClimateChange Network.

Experts work to strengthen organizations through publications and capacity-buildingworkshops mostly in Arica, South Asia, and active support or Conerence o the Parties(COP)negotiations

International Strategy or DisasterReduction(ISDR)MyCityisGettingReady Campaign

Focuses on raising political commitment to disaster risk reduction and climate changeadaptation among local governments including high prole media and publicawareness activities, and develops technical tools or capacity building.

International Organization orStandardization

DevelopmentofISO31000asetofprincipleandguidelinesforriskmanagement.

Local governments or Sustainability

(ICLEI)

Works with U.S. cities to conduct climate resiliency studies and develop adaptation

plans

Rockeeller Foundation AsianCitiesClimateChangeResilienceNetwork(ACCRN)helpscitiestodevelopadaptationplanswithcivilsociety(10citiesinVietnam,IndonesiaandThailand)

UCLG/Metropolis UnitedCitiesandLocalGovernments(UCLG)representsanddefendstheinterestso local governments on the world stage. In the area o cities and climate change,Metropolis is working on a range o projects and knowledge products

WorldBankGroup

Urbanization Knowledge Platorm(UKP)

WorldBankInstitute

New UKP which includes extensive provisions or peer-to-peer exchange and knowledgesharing

Global capacity building programs include:

E-Learning Sae and Resilient Cities Course

Networking

Mentoring

On-DemandKnowledgeandCapacityBuilding


28/33


have programs in place beore the onset o natural disasters, with fexible targeting, fexible

nancing, and fexible implementation arrangements.

At the institutional level, success translates to good leadership, good governance and

good management. These elements can be built through changes in incentive systems to

promote reorm and improve perormance, or example through better accountability, nan-

cial management and coordination across agencies, with a structured reward system. Other

methods that have proven successul are proessional certication programs or municipal

sta that elevate, proessionalize and promote their development.

There are several programs available which provide advisory assistance to decision

makers such as city technicians and city managers, and key actors in civil society. These

programs range in levels o engagement and development, but all have the common goal o

building capacity among decision makers.

There is also much capacity building that can happen as cities learn rom each other.

Successul experiences include city and local government networks at the country, regional

and international level, training programs, and knowledge exchange through twinning and

other programs that allow cities to share knowledge and inormation.


29/33


Bridging communities and local governments to work together on local solutions

It is clear that the urban poor are on the ront line in addressing the impacts o climate

change and disaster risk. There is much already happening at the household and community

level that local governments can draw upon. For example, in Esteli, Nicaragua and Mom-

basa, Kenya, over 90 percent o households took some kind o adaptation action beore,

during and ater a severe weather event.17 Such actions included repairing roos, building

stronger oundations, digging trenches, clearing drainage and ditches, repairing leaks, chan-

neling water and planting trees. These eorts are especially important or cities that have

limited capacity and resources.

At the same time, much o what is needed to reduce risk in low income urban com-

munities depends on the availability o inrastructure that residents cannot provide them-

selves. Storm and surace drainage, road and path networks, links to water networks, and

health care services require specialized skills and substantial resources that communities

may not have.

Despite the obvious benets o partnerships between local governments and communi-

ties, this does not always happen in part due to negative perceptions particularly around

policies related to inormal settlements. There are a number o good examples o partner-

ships between community organizations and local governments in working in poor urban

communities on risk reduction.

In the Philippines, a partnership between a grass roots organization, the Philippines Home-

less Peoples Federation (PHPF), and local governments has worked to secure land tenure, build

or improve homes, and increasingly to design and implement risk reduction strategies.18 Fol-

lowing the devastation caused by Typhoon Frank in 2008, the local government in the city o

Iloilo worked closely with PHPF in technical working groups, mapping o high risk areas, and

identication and prioritization o communities to be given post-disaster assistance.

In one o the oldest and largest slum areas in Jakarta, Kampung Melayu, residents have

responded to an increase in the severity and requency o fooding by developing an early

warning food system. Neighborhood and village heads receive SMS messages on their mo-

bile phones rom foodgate areas upriver when the water level is getting high. They can then

spread the news in the community by broadcasting rom the minaret o the local mosque so

that residents can prepare or the coming inundation.

One o the more complex but impressive examples is in Quelimane City, Mozambique,

where local communities have partnered with the City Council and several international or-

ganizations to work on upgrading or communities particularly aected by cyclical foods.19

The city and community worked together on developing an upgrading strategy that had a spe-

cial ocus on water and sanitation conditions. In implementing the strategy, the City Council

provided an in-kind contribution o US$100,000 by providing oce space, equipment, a

meeting room, technical and administrative sta, and vehicles. The community provided

an in-kind contribution o US$150,000 through provision o subsidized labor, conducting

awareness campaigns, orming operational management teams, and reducing their plot size

or, in extreme cases, moving to another area because o improvement works. UN-HABITAT,

the World Bank, DANIDA, UNICEF, and WaterAid in combination contributed US$440,000

in cash and in-kind. Other in-kind contributions totaling US$30,000 were secured rom a


30/33


state water supply institution, and rom a private-sector rm which made its trucks available

during weekends in exchange or paying only or uel and or the driver.

Among the lessons learned rom experience o partnerships between communities and

local governments are that such cooperation can be acilitated through mutual recognition

o the role that each group plays; improving the dialogue and discussion to dispel misunder-

standings; understanding and recognizing what is happening at the local level and orming

partnerships with local organizations.

For the poor, understanding what the city can and ca cannot provide and what its con-

straints are is a rst step. Strong community groups and detailed community-level inorma-

tion systems can be extremely eective or initiating engagement in such partnerships. For

local governments, this means recognizing the contribution that the urban poor make to a

citys economy and society and involving them in discussions about needs and priorities.

Local participation is crucial to ensure that the approach taken suits the needs o residents,

and in ensuring quality standards. Many o the examples o local government-community

organization partnerships in Arica and Asia have been initiated by ederations o slum

dwellers who are engaged in initiatives to upgrade slums, secure land tenure, develop new

housing that low-income households can aord, and to improve provision o inrastructure

and services.

Opening new fnance opportunities or cities to fnance basic services and other

needs to address climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction

The analysis o the risks or the urban poor associated with climate change and natural

hazards point to signicant nancing needs or cities. Adaptation and risk reduction costs in-

clude both physical investments such as urban inrastructure and basic services in slum areas,

but equally important are investments in good inormation systems and tools or integrating

climate change and disaster risk management into urban planning, saety nets, and capacity

building to help local governments better deliver services and manage risk or their residents.

Cities in developing countries currently rely on national and local tax revenues, the

private sector, public-private partnerships, and loans and concessional sources through the

World Bank and other multilateral development banks to nance inrastructure and social

needs. There are also a number o existing programs that provide smaller-scale grants or

technical assistance or projects and programs at the city level. In practice, such resources are

vastly insucient to meet the service needs o the population, particularly in slums.

When reviewing potential nancing needs or climate adaptation and disaster risk re-

duction, it is important to consider that not all investments are necessarily high and some

can have more direct impacts on the poor than others. Large scale city-wide inrastructure

investments or food protection or measures to make roads, ports and power generation

acilities more resilient to extreme events may be necessary in many cities over time, but they

are expensive and will not improve conditions or those living with the debilitating impacts

o the more requent less extreme events.

Smaller-scale investments in drainage and improvements in basic inrastructure need not

be expensive, and are catalytic in building resilience or the urban poor. Slum upgrading pro-


31/33


grams take a neighborhood approach and in addition to local inrastructure improvements,

oten include social programs aimed at community development. Such programs are most

eective when coupled with policies that tackle dicult issues related to land. Innovative ap-

proaches to nancing such as output-based aid, oering pro-poor incentives to utilities and

the private sector, and policies that promote an enabling environment or small private sector

service providers while ensuring quality and aordability or residents oer much potential

or scaling up.

In low income communities in western Jakarta, a scheme developed through the Global

Partnership on Output Based Aid (GPOBA), the city government, and the local water utility,

PALYJA, is designed to subsidize the cost o water supply connections or almost 12,000

households in a number o poor areas, including 2,200 in inormal settlements where

PALYJA had previously not been authorized to provide services.20 Concessionaires are given

grants or the cost o installing connections to the networks provisional on two measureable

outputsthe provision o a working household connection, and the delivery o acceptable

service or a period o three months. While the project has aced some dicult challenges

in implementation related to water availability, and problems dealing with existing inormal

water suppliers, these eventually were resolved, with the help o the NGO Mercy Corps,

paving the way or urther expansion to other communities.

Another nancing approach used is individuals and communities spreading the cost o

risk across a population through the establishment o insurance or catastrophic risk pools.

These instruments are generally or upper- and middle-income amilies, large businesses and

wealthy governments, but not or the urban poor. Micronance schemes, however, can be used

to nance risk reduction and recovery eorts by the poor. They have been used to improve re-

silience through housing improvements, and livelihoods assets. In low-income communities in

El Salvador sel insurance schemes include encouraging amily members to migrate to provide

remittance income, and stockpiling building materials which can either be used or resold.21

One study estimated that residents spend approximately nine percent o their income on risk

reduction measures. At the community level, many contribute to community emergency unds

or join religious institutions that traditionally oer post disaster help.

In Manizales Colombia, the city has arranged or insurance coverage to cover the urban

poor through municipal tax collection. Any city resident may purchase insurance coverage

or their property, and once 30 percent o the insurable buildings participate, the insurance

coverage is extended to tax exempted properties, including properties with a value o 25

monthly salaries or less (estimated at US$3400).22 Despite the municipal administration col-

lecting a handling ee o six percent, the insurance company has a direct contractual relation-

ship with the individual taxpayer and bears responsibility or all the claims.

In the context o the Mayors Task Force on Climate Change, Disaster Risk and the

Urban Poor, a Program or Climate Finance and Assistance or Cities is proposed. This

Program would bring together many o the existing resources that are available and draw

on some innovative instruments such as green bonds or cities and results based nancing

or basic services. With regard to climate support alone, the World Bank oers more than

30 potential programs including capacity building and technical assistance programs, and

unding initiatives. An ecient combination o such instruments could leverage public and

private sources while encouraging low carbon development. One approach to acilitating ac-


32/33


cess would be creating one access window or the programs. This would enable city-specic

partnerships similar to the Banks Country Partnership Strategies.

To encourage cities to achieve specied targets, such a program could consider a more

standardized approach to benchmarking and monitoring through a set o metrics commonly

agreed upon by the international community such as a City Level GHG index, urban risk

assessments, or Local Resilience Action Plans. By meeting specied targets, cities would then

be eligible or accessing such nancing through the designated window.

In conclusion, the challenges are great or cities around the world conronting the risks

associated with climate change and natural hazards, but understanding the challenges is the

rst step in overcoming them. As is apparent in this summary and in the report, there are

examples in cities all over the world, good practices that show how cities can help build

resilience or their urban poor in the ace o risk. In doing so, cities are beneting not just the

poor, but uture generations.


33/33


Endnotes

1 UN-HABITAT. 2008. Harmonious Cities: State o the Worlds Cities 2008/9. Earthscan Publica-

tions Ltd., London and Sterling, VA.

2 EM-DAT, OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, 2011. An event is dened as a disaster

in which a) atality>9; or b) 100 people reported aected; or c) a call or international assistance isissued; or d) a state o emergency is declared. Event occurrence is captured at the country level.

3 UN-HABITAT. 2003. The Challenge o Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements. London/

Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

4 IIED, Undated.

5 Center or Urban Studies, 2006.

6 World Bank. 2010. Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate change in Urban Centers: Case Studies o

Vulnerability and Resilience in Kenya and Nicaragua.

7 IPCC, 2007

8 This is drawn rom Livengood, Avery (2011), Enabling participatory planning with GIS: a case

study o settlement mapping in Cuttack, India, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 23, No. 2

and rom eld visits to Cuttack by David Satterthwaite in June and October 2010

9 City o New York. PlaNYC: Climate Change, New York, New York Mayors Oce, 2008, and

2011 http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml

10 Jakarta Risk Assessment, 2011, Mayors Task Force Report.

11 World Bank, 2010. A Workbook on Local Resilience Action Planning in Vietnam.

12 Birkmann, Jrn, et al. Adaptive Urban Governance: New Challenges or the Second Generation o

Urban Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change, Sustain Sci, vol. 5, pp. 185-206, June 2010 http://

www.springerlink.com/content/3715767841514733/

13 GFDRR, 2011. Volunteer Technology Communities: Open Development. A Global Facility or

Disaster Reduction and Recovery Publication, Washington DC.

14 Dar es Salaam Risk Assessment, Mayors Task Force, 2011.

15 Birkmann, Jrn, et al. Adaptive Urban Governance: New Challenges or the Second Generation o

Urban Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change, Sustain Sci, vol. 5, pp. 185206, June 201016 Pelham, L., Clay, E., and T. Braunholz, 2011, Natural Disasters, What is the Role o Saety Nets?

Social Protection Discussion Paper, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

17 World Bank. 2010. Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate change in Urban Centers: Case Studies o

Vulnerability and Resilience in Kenya and Nicaragua.

18 Homeless Peoples Federation o the Philippines (2010), Addressing Vulnerabilities through Sup-

port Mechanisms: HPFPIs Ground Experience in Enabling the Poor to Implement Community-

rooted Interventions on Disaster Response and Risk Reduction, A background paper prepared or

the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 16 pages.

19 City Council o Quelimane (2006), Improving Water and Sanitation in Quelimane City, Mozam-

bique, Program Proposal to the Cities Alliance. Cities Alliance (2008), Comments on Progress Re-

port, Improving Water and Sanitation in Quelimane City, P101077. Grimard, Alain (2006, 2007,

2008), Grant Progress Report, Improving Water and Sanitation in Quelimane City, P101077.20 Menzies, I. and I. Setiono, 2010, Output-Based Aid in Indonesia: Improved Access to Water Ser-

vices or Poor Households in Western Jakarta, GPOBA Approaches Note, Washington, D.C.

21 Watch Institute. State o the World 2007: Our Urban Future. Norton: New York.

22 Velasquez Barrero Luz Stella (2010) La gestin del riesgo en el contexto ambiental urbano local:

Un reto permanente y compartido. Caso Manizales, Colombia. Background paper prepared or the

2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction.

banco mundial 2011.climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor

Documents