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. 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?

1 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.

1

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.

2

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

3

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) 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;

(ii) Catalyzing, integrating and bringing together a broad array of urban-focused partners

as well as strategic financing;

(iii) Harnessing support from national governments for the development of a common

platform to support cities;

(iv) 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.

4

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).

5

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

2 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.

6

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) Common metrics and a consistent terminology through applications of tools such as

ISO 37120 and the C40-ICLEI-WRI greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory;

(ii) Quantifying energy and material flows through urban metabolism assessments –

resource efficient cities;

4 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.

7

(iii) Identification of a hierarchy of urban management that prioritizes service provision,

increasing resilience and decreasing emissions and environmental impact;

(iv) 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 large-

scale 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.

8

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

9

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; long-

lived 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 low-

carbon 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.

7 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.

10

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)

11

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.

12

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 long-

term 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 longer-

term 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

9 ‘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).

13

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)

World’s Largest Cities in 2050 - World Urbanization Prospects

1 Mumbai (Bombay), India 47,405,075 51 Hanoi, Viet Nam 10,865,748

2 Delhi, India 40,185,201 52 London, UK 10,846,263

3 Dhaka, Bangladesh 37,463,323 53 Seoul, Republic of Korea 10,649,833

4 Kinshasa, DRC 36,976,677 54 Hong Kong SAR, China 10,487,986

5 Kolkata (Calcutta), India 36,789,002 55 Kampala, Uganda 10,385,081

6 Lagos, Nigeria 36,317,189 56 Surat, India 10,316,941

7 Tokyo, Japan 35,069,719 57 Chongqing, China 10,092,061

8 Karachi, Pakistan 33,322,655 58 Ibadan, Nigeria 9,921,571

9 New York-Newark (NY), USA 29,771,600 59 Alexandria, Egypt 9,865,148

10 Ciudad De Mexico, Mexico 27,899,557 60 Dakar, Senegal 9,857,951

11 Cairo, Egypt 27,269,877 61 Yangon, Myanmar 9,738,860

12 Metro Manila, Philippines 26,964,744 62 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 9,303,186

13 Sao Paulo, Brazil 25,331,438 63 Bamako, Mali 8,965,158

14 Shanghai, China 25,312,920 64 Miami (FL), USA 8,719,120

15 Lahore, Pakistan 21,956,353 65 Santiago, Brazil 8,633,403

16 Kabul, Afghanistan 20,091,832 66 Kanpur, India 8,135,258

17 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (CA), USA 19,080,286 67 Philadelphia (PA), USA 8,025,967

18 Chennai (Madras), India 18,952,129 68 Antananarivo, Madagascar 7,982,208

19 Khartoum, Sudan 18,118,292 69 Belo Horizonte, Brazil 7,956,741

20 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 18,027,123 70 Faisalabad (Lyallpur), Pakistan 7,939,412

21 Beijing (Peking), China 17,852,479 71 Toronto, Canada 7,885,326

22 Jakarta, Indonesia 17,716,202 72 Abuja, Nigeria 7,808,832

23 Bangalore, India 17,073,101 73 Jaipur, India 7,790,506

24 Buenos Aires, Argentina 16,487,372 74 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso 7,680,796

25 Baghdad, Iraq 16,218,123 75 Niamey, Niger 7,679,709

26 Hyderabad, India 15,967,802 76 Santiago, Chile 7,641,188

14

27 Luanda, Angola 15,884,358 77 Dongguan, Guangdong, China 7,406,453

28 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 15,783,866 78 Shenyang, China 7,329,327

29 Nairobi, Kenya 15,732,997 79 Mogadishu, Somalia 6,986,284

30 Istanbul, Turkey 15,306,379 80 Giza, Egypt 6,966,613

31 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 13,627,624 81 Madrid, Spain 6,886,304

32 Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 13,523,389 82 Dallas-Fort Worth (TX), USA 6,872,605

33 Ahmedabad, India 13,150,247 83 Lucknow, India 6,849,837

34 Chittagong, Bangladesh 13,137,100 84 Tlaquepaque, Mexico 6,794,759

35 Chicago (IL), USA 13,072,586 85 Tonala, Mexico 6,744,462

36 Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam 12,904,720 86 Zapopan, Mexico 6,617,098

37 Lima, Peru 12,775,694 87 Atlanta (GA), USA 6,582,660

38 Bogota, D.C., Colombia 12,690,334 88 Lubumbashi, DRC 6,563,327

39 Shenzhen, China 12,479,995 89 Conakry, Guinea 6,563,327

40 Paris, France 12,295,334 90 Houston (TX), USA 6,563,327

41 Bangkok, Thailand 12,203,182 91 Boston (MA), USA 6,563,327

42 Tehran, Iran 11,879,486 92 Mbuji-Mayi, DRC 6,531,657

43 Pune, India 11,832,375 93 Accra, Ghana 6,511,984

44 Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire 11,655,715 94 Aleppo, Syria 6,419,593

45 Kano, Nigeria 11,498,011 95 Washington (DC), USA 6,392,701

46 Wuhan, China 11,448,244 96 Chengdu, China 6,376,057

47 Moscow, Russia 11,283,416 97 Sydney, Australia 6,191,586

48 Osaka-Kobe, Japan 11,015,277 98 Guadalajara, Mexico 6,166,533

49 Tianjin, China 10,988,333 99 Nagpur, India 6,140,764

50 Sana'a, Yemen 10,983,039 100 Xi'an, Shaanxi, China 6,129,362

World’s Largest Cities – Population Projection in 2050; World Urbanization Prospects

101 Guadalupe, Nuevo León, Mexico 6,052,874 151 Lilongwe, Malawi 4,622,988

102 Barcelona, Spain 6,052,874 152 Kunming, China 4,613,808

103 Guiyang, China 5,932,345 153 Kalyoubia, Egypt 4,583,041

104 Lusaka, Zambia 5,865,491 154 Blantyre City, Malawi 4,545,907

105 Detroit (MI), USA 5,829,578 155 Mombasa, Kenya 4,479,017

106 Maputo, Mozambique 5,809,972 156 Tashkent, Uzbekistan 4,472,662

107 N'Djamena, Chad 5,802,201 157 Al-Hudaydah, Yemen 4,462,470

108 Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 5,764,813 158 Pyongyang, DPR of Korea 4,454,102

109 Ankara, Turkey 5,708,551 159 Khulna, Bangladesh 4,428,284

110 Singapore, Singapore 5,683,847 160 Seattle (WA), USA 4,402,743

111 Damascus, Syria 5,638,701 161 Multan, Pakistan 4,402,351

112 Algiers (El Djazair), Algeria 5,606,205 162 Monrovia, Liberia 4,357,431

113 Nanjing, Jiangsu, China 5,569,888 163 Gujranwala, Pakistan 4,352,880

114 Phnom Penh, Cambodia 5,557,772 164 Vadodara, India 4,316,456

115 Douala, Cameroon 5,534,631 165 Guayaquil, Ecuador 4,303,940

116 Haerbin, China 5,491,072 166 Kuwait City, Kuwait 4,291,640

117 Patna, India 5,481,378 167 Qingdao, China 4,274,770

118 Melbourne, Australia 5,468,430 168 Benin City, Nigeria 4,225,914

119 Monterrey, Mexico 5,377,637 169 Bhopal, India 4,224,606

120 Surabaya, Indonesia 5,358,949 170 Curitiba, Brazil 4,206,267

121 Rawalpindi, Pakistan 5,304,270 171 Jinan, Shandong, China 4,163,786

122 Lome, Togo 5,302,399 172 Fuzhou, Fujian, China 4,161,406

123 Medellín, Colombia 5,294,746 173 Coimbatore, India 4,139,848

124 Porto Alegre, Brazil 5,291,291 174 Changsha, Hunan, China 4,134,314

125 Casablanca (Dar-el-Beida), Morocco 5,218,962 175 Hyderabad, Pakistan 4,107,948

126 Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel 5,189,194 176 Ta'izz, Yemen 4,071,910

127 Phoenix-Mesa (AZ), USA 5,177,419 177 San Diego (CA), USA 4,070,382

15

128 Brasilia, Brazil 5,155,538 178 Lanzhou, China 4,052,240

129 Kaduna, Nigeria 5,139,171 179 Mosul, Iraq 4,026,786

130 Montréal, Canada 5,113,884 180 Ludhiana, India 4,008,734

131 Indore, India 5,104,382 181 Xiamen, China 4,007,511

132 Johannesburg, South Africa 5,100,604 182 Asuncion, Paraguay 4,005,345

133 Changchun, China 5,090,505 183 Medan, Indonesia 3,997,931

134 Kumasi, Ghana 4,996,497 184 Kathmandu, Nepal 3,949,111

135 San Francisco-Oakland (CA), USA 4,952,191 185 Agra, India 3,949,111

136 Port-au-Prince, Haiti 4,915,542 186 Jinxi, Liaoning, China 3,940,991

137 Dalian, China 4,820,884 187 Zhengzhou, China 3,939,575

138 Hangzhou, China 4,800,655 188 Durban, South Africa 3,938,210

139 Recife, Brazil 4,787,886 189 Athens, Greece 3,881,866

140 Haiphong, Viet Nam 4,776,388 190 Brazzaville, DRC 3,881,497

141 Salvador, Brazil 4,771,066 191 Izmir, Turkey 3,872,851

142 Cape Town, South Africa 4,740,223 192 San Martín Texmelucan, Mexico 3,844,931

143 Kigali, Rwanda 4,736,155 193 Shijiazhuang, China 3,826,075

144 Zibo, China 4,728,077 194 Mashhad, Iran 3,808,883

145 Yaoundé, Cameroon 4,674,496 195 Jilin, China 3,807,492

146 Fortaleza, Brazil 4,654,664 196 Nanchang, China 3,807,143

147 St. Petersburg, Russia 4,652,293 197 Campinas, Brazil 3,792,487

148 Taiyuan, Shanxi, China 4,648,609 198 Harare, Zimbabwe 3,759,690

149 Bandung, Indonesia 4,637,687 199 Wenzhou, China 3,758,568

150 Caracas, Venezuela 4,636,615 200 Taipei, China 3,755,185

From: Hoornweg and Pope, Population Predictions of the 101 Largest Cities in the 21st 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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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

19

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 city-

based 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

20

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-the-

ground 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.

21

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.

22

Annex 1 Methodology on Material Flow Analysis in Cities

This approach is consistent with UNEP’s Resource Efficient Cities initiative, as well as low-

carbon city growth strategies. The measure of GHG emissions, for example, is based on the C40-

ICLEI-WRI community emissions inventory.

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)

WATERINTERNA

L

WATERSTOCK

BIOMASSPR

OD.

ENERGYOUT

BIOMASSIN

MINERALOUT

WATEROUT

MINERALSTOCK

MINERALPRO

D.

ENERGYI

N

WATERIN

MINERALI

N

23

Table A1.1: Data Requirements for Abbreviated Urban Metabolism Studies (GCIF=Global

Cities Indicator Facility)

Quantity GCIF Required

for GHG

calculation

Notes

INFLOWS

Food

Water (imports)

Water (precipitation)

Groundwater abstraction

Construction materials

Fossil fuels (by type)

Electricity

Total incoming solar radiation

Nitrogen & Phosphorus

√

√

√

√*

√*

√*

√*

√

√

Standard climate data

Primarily cement, aggregates, steel

Standard climate data

Example nutrient

PRODUCED

Food

Construction materials

√*

√

Cement and steel production

STOCKS

Construction materials

Nitrogen & Phosphorus

Landfill waste

Construction/demolition waste

√

In the building stock

Accumulated

OUTFLOWS

Exported landfill waste

Incinerated waste

Exported recyclables

Wastewater

Nitrogen & Phosphorus

SO2

NOx

CO

Volatile organics

Particulates

Methane

Ozone

Black carbon

√

√

√

√

√+

√+

Air emission plus accumulated mass

*: has upstream (embodied) GHG emissions

+: typically omitted from GHG calculations due to difficulty in estimation

24

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).

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

wood

other materials

Other (machinery, durable) [t]

metals

other materials

Substances

QW SW

PB

OE

IB

OM

OW

IM

Iw

IE

SM

PM

25

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,

26

whether it be local solid waste and habitat destruction or global GHG emissions and loss of

biodiversity.

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 GHG-

emissions 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.

Climate Change

Rate of

Biodiversity

Loss

Fresh Water Use

Change In Land

Use

Nitrogen Cycle

Pollution

Geophysical

Risks (by City

level)

27

Figure A2.3 provides an approximation to the global social science boundaries (i.e. socio-

economic) – 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.

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.

Youth

Opportunity

Economy

Energy

Poverty

Including

Access to

ElectricityMobility and

Connectivity

Institutions

Basic

Services

Security and

Public Safety

28

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 ‘well-

built 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.

29

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.

Figure A2.4: Physical science limits: Dakar Metropolitan Area vs. global condition

Climate

Change

Rate of

Biodiversity

Loss

Fresh Water

Use

Change In

Land Use

Nitrogen

Cycle

Pollution

Geophysical

Risks (by

City level)

30

Figure A2.5: Socio-economic limits: Dakar Metropolitan Area vs. World’s Target

Youth

Opportunity

Economy

Energy

Poverty

Including

Access to

ElectricityMobility and

Connectivity

Institutions

Basic Services

Security and

Public Safety

31

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