Chatlog

Room: Chat 8
Theme: Chat: Local governments in the post-Kyoto process: how to move adaptation in the urban water management higher on the agenda

Franziska Mannke:Dear CLIMATE 2010 live chat participants
On behalf of the CLIMATE 2010, we would like to welcome you to our last expert live chat on
Local governments in the post-Kyoto process: how to move adaptation in the urban water management higher on the agenda, facilitated by our conference partner ICLEI.
Franziska Mannke:This session will explore potential entry doors and strategies for local governments to ensure water is taken up more prominently in a post-2012 agreement that includes the recognition of spheres of government below the national level.
Franziska Mannke:First, I´d like to welcome today´s facilitator: Prof. Dr. Johan Kuylenstierna, Director, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Stockholm Centre and Deputy Director SEI Operations.
Franziska Mannke:Johan will be joined by the following colleagues:
Hannah Stoddart, Water and Climate Coalition and Moritz Remig, Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies, and we also expect Akissa Bahri from the African Development Bank.
Franziska Mannke:Dear Johan - the floor is your´s. For a start, would you be so kind to briefly introduce yourself to our audience and then ask your colleagues to introduce themselves as well?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Thank you. Yes, you have introduced me quite well.
Johan Kuylenstierna:I just wish to add that I have a background from the UN-system and have worked with global issues. The local dimensions are indeed very important and this is what we will discuss today
Johan Kuylenstierna:Hannah, can you briefly introduce yourself?
Hannah Stoddart:Certainly. I am the Head of Policy and Advocacy at Stakeholder Forum and I co-manage with Stockholm International Water Institute the ´Water and Climate Coalition´, which is a global coalition of actors calling for water resources management to placed at the heart of global policy responses to climate change.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Moritz, can you say a few words about yourself?
Moritz Remig:Sure. Thanks very much for the possibility to participate. Good afternoon everybody. I´m Moritz. I am sitting in Potsdam in the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, a newly founded sustainability research institute headed by Prof. Klaus Töpfer. By training, I am an ecological economist working now in the Cluster "Global Contract for Sustainability". - And by the way it´s raining outside (so much for the water topic)
Johan Kuylenstierna:Thanks both of you, we indeed have good experts on-board! Let us move to the first question.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Global agreements are indeed important - but can they be of any direct help to local governments. How? Hannah can you start
Hannah Stoddart:That´s a big question, but an important one. It is sometimes difficult to see the relevance of global agreements if you are delivering and implementing projects and services ´on the ground´, as is the case with local government. But I think that global agreements can help to shift and shape agendas, and help to support innovative local councils who are trying to lead on particular issues such as water management. For example, Agenda 21 gave birth to Local Agenda 21, which gave a global ´steer´ to local sustainable development priorities. The Water and Climate Coalition believes that through getting recognition at the highest global level of the importance of water management for climate change adaptation, this will in turn inform and support national and subsequently local priorities.
Johan Kuylenstierna:That a really some good points. Moritz, would you agree? Anything you wish to add to this topic?
Moritz Remig:Yes, that´s completely right and also one of the points I wanted to make. Rio and Agenda 21 are indeed crucially important processes that help to foster local action. The claim "think globally, act locally" frames this idea nicely. In addition to the top-down approach, bottom-up initiatives are also quite important. And its not a one-way road: local and global initiatives influence each other. One further comment: Just because a global agreement is hard to reach, is no justification for not starting action locally.
Moritz Remig:On the contrary, local action has to start now and lots of actors are already involved.
Johan Kuylenstierna:That is a good point - and was the follow-up question I was going to ask.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Hasn´t it been a problem that some local governments can argue they need to wait for more "political steer" at global (national) level before taking necessary action? Moritz?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Hannah, while Moritz provide further insight to this, could you maybe reflect on the "bottom-up" issue; how can local governments help push the adaptation issue at the global level, so we get the necessary global support for action. Mobilize "political will" and commitment?
Moritz Remig:I do not think this is a valid argument. Certainly, a global agreement is necessary insofar as it mobilizes more easily people and might give direct benefit to local initiatives. However, if a global agreement is not foreseeable (and I hardly doubt that there will be a strong legally binding international treaty very soon), then local action must be key.
Hannah Stoddart:I agree with Moritz, and I will also add a few more comments
Moritz Remig:And often local action has direct local benefits. As for example in climate change, just think about: air quality, better public transport system, greener cities, more public participation in political decision-making...
Johan Kuylenstierna:Moritz, I agree. Would you then think it is really a waste of time for local governments to be involved and try to influence global processes such as the UNFCCC negotiations? Too much time for too little outcome?
Hannah Stoddart:I think that too often the global and the local are seen to be in opposition to one another. At a session at World Water Week there were some stakeholders who were rather dismissive of the global agenda, claiming that it is all about local implementation. Equally, I was at an event in Scotland recently and some local actors expressed this view. BUT...
Johan Kuylenstierna:We are eager to hear what will follow after the BUT...
Hannah Stoddart:With many environmental issues, action does need to be taken on a global level and responsibilities shared across different countries, and this is important for any progress to be meaningful. This does not mean that local actors should feel disempowered to act if decisions are not taken on a global level, but that they should bring their experience and opinions of what actually works and what needs to be done to the global stage, so that actions can be ´scaled up´ and principles can be agreed.
Hannah Stoddart:The local and the global are not mutually exclusive, but rather COMPLETELY complementary. I think we need to resist attempts to somehow disregard one or the other.
Moritz Remig:As Hannah mentions, my analysis is that local and global are not in opposition. Rather, bottom up initiatives, such as 350.org or others, can make a difference in getting a moment for a global agreement. Also in showing that there is a possibility to act.
Hannah Stoddart:Absolutely.. Although with the water agenda there are some further challenges.
Johan Kuylenstierna:That is excellent. Why is it more challenging in relation to the water agenda?
Moritz Remig:Could you mention some, Hannah?
Hannah Stoddart:I think because it is easier to claim that water is not a global issue.. That water management is a local and regional concern, because of different contexts in terms of water availability and rainfall etc
Hannah Stoddart:However, I think that whilst water may not be a global issue in the way that carbon is, it is a common global concern, if that distinction makes sense.
Johan Kuylenstierna:This is a valid point. Isn´t it in general easier to argue that mitigation issues are more global while adaptation is really a local issue?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Yes, but by pushing it at the global level, we may actually prevent further progress because it is getting too complex. This is what some argue, and thus wish to keep issues such as water out of the negotiations. Moritz?
Hannah Stoddart:I think that might be to go too far. I think that mitigation by its nature requires a global response to be successful and meaningful. It is possible, by contrast, to have successful adaptation in one place and not in another. However, this does not mean that there shouldn´t be a common and collective response to climate change, and agreed principles on adaptation as well as on who bears the cost for that and how it is delivered.
Hannah Stoddart:The Millennium Development Goals cover a whole range of issues that manifest themselves differently in different countries and regions - HIV/AIDS may be more of a problem in one country than another. Water and Sanitation may be more important in India, whilst maternal health may be more important in some African nations. However, the global community still needs to define a common approach, in ´solidarity´, if you will.
Moritz Remig:Yes Johan, but both are related. The adaptation is a local phenomenon but in the end, mitigation is also locally taking place.

As for the water issue, I think it is important not to mix topics this fast - and not to link water only to climate change. Of course, climate change influences water availability, precipitation patterns, etc. But there is also a whole discussion about water, access to save drinking water, etc.
Johan Kuylenstierna:This is really an important point. Urban Water Management must consider many different challenges. Is there too much focus on Climate Change you would say?
Hannah Stoddart:I agree, Moritz. Climate change in many ways exacerbates existing problems with water management
Hannah Stoddart:I don´t think there is enough focus on climate change! But maybe I would say that ;)
Johan Kuylenstierna:Hannah, the fact that the global community needs to define a common approach - can you explain?
Moritz Remig:I did not want to make a judgement. The idea was to point out different discourses about, for example, water.
Franziska Mannke:We have a question from the audience on this as well - Fikadu would like to know: Urban water management can be an issue of health and safety, in addition to meeting the needs of urban population, since most of urban wastes are usually risky. Is there an internationally agreed guideline about urban water management? For example, I know some of the rivers in Ethiopia are highly populated by wates from urban areas an industrial by products. Can you explain?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Yes, and that is indeed important.
Moritz Remig:Perhaps Johan or Hannah know more on that specific point.
Johan Kuylenstierna:As far as I know, there are no "global guidelines" related to Urban Water Management. It is, as has been stated, a very local issue and one "good system" doesn´t always fit another place.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Hannah, anything you wish to add?
Hannah Stoddart:I imagine that there have been a number of discussions on this at the global level, though nothing legally binding. Agenda 21 focuses on urban issues, as does the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. There is also a Multilateral Environmental Agreement called...
Moritz Remig:Which might explain the difficulty to come to global guidelines. Exchanging best practices though might be a pragmatic approach.
Hannah Stoddart:The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from LAnd-Based ACtivities... PHEW! Also known as the GPA, it is a programme agreed by UN member states to address the affects of land-based water management on the marine environment, and includes a focus on urban water management issues.
Johan Kuylenstierna:There are also many partnerships emerging, such as the Water Operators partnership, but they are not applying "mandatory guiding principles".
Hannah Stoddart:But guidelines are piecemeal and captured in a diversity of documents and agreements
Johan Kuylenstierna:maybe this is a good way to move the discussion. We can clearly agree there are many, many issues to consider besides adaptation to CC, but this is indeed the topic of this discussion.
Moritz Remig:Especially that in water management issues person-based tacit knowledge of the local communities is extremely important.
Moritz Remig:My comment was a reaction to Hannah´s "mandatory guidelines"
Johan Kuylenstierna:How can local governments foster collaboration on "adaptation to CC" besides existing global processes? Should they work through existing organizations or is there a need for a new "global mechanism" of some kind? Hannah?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Moritz, please step in you as well of course!
Hannah Stoddart:I´ll leave Moritz to answer first!
Johan Kuylenstierna:That is cheating!
Hannah Stoddart:Or I´m happy to go first, whatever suits!
Hannah Stoddart:Ok, I´ll go first..
Moritz Remig:Ok then. I´ll have a try.
Hannah Stoddart:Ok!
Moritz Remig:Then ladies first, please
Franziska Mannke:
Johan Kuylenstierna:Please go in parallel - we don´t have a lot of time left.
Moritz Remig:Local governments are already involved in the climate change negotiations. I do not know if it would be good to create completely new institutions for an agreement on adaptation to climate change.
Moritz Remig:Local procedures like cooperation between regions and cities is also a good way to enlarge the local perspective and start acting globally.
Hannah Stoddart:Ok. Basically I think there are a number of global considerations. Under the UNFCCC they are currently negotiating a new adaptation ´architecture´, which will include some kind of adaptation ´framework´ or ´committee´ that will provide advice, guidance, identify priorities, identify vulnerability etc. Local government should ensure that it supports the development of a robust adaptation architecture under the UNFCCC.
Johan Kuylenstierna:You are probably right, but this appears to take a lot of time! Could there / should there be more active collaboration between local governments to better address CC adaptation? If yes, how?
Hannah Stoddart:There is also a big question of finance. Financing adaptation is going to be/become as important as traditional aid over the coming years. Billions of dollars are going to flow into developing countries for ´adaptation´. Local government has a good understanding of what is needed, and where capacity needs to be built, so should be playing a strong role in identifying where and how this money might be spent.
Hannah Stoddart:It should be speaking out on issues such as water management, which is a key priority for climate change adaptation. It should be identifying criteria for adaptation finance and for vulnerability assessments which include a strong focus on water.
Moritz Remig:However, the debate about adaptation does not save us from mitigation. And in the end, lifestyles in industrialized countries will have to change too.
Johan Kuylenstierna:I also wish to consider financial issues. As you say, Hannah, we are talking about enormous investments at the local level. Do you think global initiatives such as the Global Adaptation Fund will be important for local governments or is it more important to get better "cost recovery" within the water sector in order to mobilize enough financial resources? How do we deal with issues such as corruption? Transparency International is now very interested in this topic due to the large financial flows that can be expected. Many questions - please feel free to reflect a bit!
Walter Leal:Dear experts: what type of support do you feel local governments needs, to help them to cope with the challenges climate time poses to them?
Hannah Stoddart:Great questions, Johan! I will have a stab at answering them, though is MOritz perhaps well placed to answer the questions on the support that local governments need?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Walter, that is a good question. We probably need the full range in many cases: Capacity Development, institutional development, support to investments in infrastructure, maintenance etc. But again, it probably differs very much from one place to the other - not one city is like the other, even if there commonalities as well. Hanna, Moritz, please feel free to reflect on this as well.
Moritz Remig:You are right Johan. Though, structurally speaking there are lots of similar problems that cities and local governments face.
Hannah Stoddart:As far as adaptation and finance/corruption, I think this is a CRUCIAL issue.
Johan Kuylenstierna:True Moritz. What would be your key advice then?
Moritz Remig:Therefore exchange on best solutions for public transport, energy distribution and efficiency, renewable energy use and lots of other topics are important.
Moritz Remig:This is where a network of engaged local government can have a great impact.
Johan Kuylenstierna:So a "holistic approach" is really key?
Moritz Remig:What do you mean by holistic approach? Regarding climate change? Or local government involvement?
Hannah Stoddart:I think the NGO community has only been focussing on half the story. Arguing for massive injections of cash is of course important, as adaptation is going to be costly. But, firstly, estimations of cost for adaptation are wildly varying. From 50 billion to as much as 3 trillion by some estimates. It´s clear that in some ways it´s impossible to really pin down a figure, so i think perhaps we need to move on from this strategy. Secondly, it is difficult to assess what is ´additional´. Many good development projects and good water management capacity building programmes are good for building resilience to climate change. Education can be argued to be good at building resilience to climate change, as is female empowerment, but its ´new and additional´?
Moritz Remig:Hannah is right. If we are talking about adaptation financing, these points are of highest interest.
Hannah Stoddart:In which case, I think we need to actually learn from our own community on this issue, and take some wording form the ´Global Programme of Action for Sanitation and Water´
Hannah Stoddart:I think that´s what it´s called!..
Johan Kuylenstierna:I listened to Monique Barbut yesterday, the CEO of GEF. She said that it was unrealistic to think that 100 billion per year in targeted funds could actually be invested. In many countries, with the biggest needs, there are no structures in place to receive any large amounts of funds. This points at the necessity to build capacity first, but many governments in developing countries don´t like that,. They want to see infrastructure first!
Hannah Stoddart:But in any case, the key message is that ´no credible plan shall fail for lack of finance´.
Johan Kuylenstierna:It is Sanitation and Water for All - A Global Framework for Action
Hannah Stoddart:Yes, I fully agree with you Johan, and Monique makes an important point, although this isn´t always received well by developing countries or many advocates.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Exactly. But how can we avoid to become "top-down" in our approach?
Hannah Stoddart:That´s the one! And it has the message spot on. Identify the need first, then match the funding to the need. This may turn out to be MORE expensive than current estimates, it may be less, but the point is that this is a more sensible approach
Moritz Remig:Public infrastructure is most important to me. And I would also include education infrastructure, so social infrastructure, in it.
Franziska Mannke:Dear Johan, Hannah, Moritz - the chat ends in 5 minutes. Can I ask you to prepare a short closing statement with your thoughts to ensure water is taken up more prominently in any post-2012 agreement?
Moritz Remig:Once more, a top-down approach can easily be complemented by a bottom up approach.
Walter Leal:Many thanks. This can cause some worries, since "rich" countries may be able to adapt and "poor" ones may struggle. Bearing in mind we only have about 5 minutes left, could you please comment on your opinions as to how we may bridge the gap?
Johan Kuylenstierna:But having a plan is one thing, implementing it another and this is where lack of capacity often come in, rather than lack of money.
Hannah Stoddart:Also, this approach, using the word ´credible´, allows for anti-corruption and transparency measures to be built in. Thus addressing Transparency International´s concerns
Moritz Remig:In this case, a global agreement would then be able to fund these bottom-up approaches.
Hannah Stoddart:Sure, but if there is a genuine need then there should be a commitment on behalf of the donor community to fund it! Full stop!
Hannah Stoddart:Exactly!
Moritz Remig:I completely agree Hannah.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Walter, what gap do you mean exactly?
Hannah Stoddart:Indeed, the ´framework´ and principles are defined at the highest level, some of the priorities are identified at the highest level too... Then this helps to provide guidance but also meet the needs identified by those at a local level.
Hannah Stoddart:Yes, Walter, could you clarify which gap you´re referring to? The global-local divide?
Johan Kuylenstierna:Yes, but a tricky thing can be - what "demands" can we put on the country/city developing the plan? This is politically very sensitive. If they ask for support to water infrastructure, should a requirement be that they should apply more cost recovery to maintain the system?
Walter Leal:I mean the financial one.
Walter Leal:How can we try to ensure those who cannot afford to adapt, to still benefit from adaptation methods and technologies.
Moritz Remig:To sum up, I think that Walter makes the very important point in the gap between local needs and global agreements - and we would then come back to the link between global agreements and local initiatives. We have to do our best to fill this gap and make a participatory process out of it, allowing for bottom up initiatives to have an impact (also by supporting them financially).
Hannah Stoddart:I think that is a reasonable request, but cost recovery can manifest itself in a diversity of ways, some of which are more equitable than others. And that´s where the debate comes in.
Johan Kuylenstierna:Yes, this is a good point. we also need to support the formulation of the needs. There is often money, but no "demand" as it is quite often very complicated to apply for support. This is what makes me a bit worried if we establish a new Adaptation Fund under the UNFCCC. It could smell bureaucrazy!
Franziska Mannke:Johan, any closing words from your side to our audience?
Franziska Mannke:...sorry, you were faster than me.
Hannah Stoddart:To sum up, if I have time, I think that adaptation to climate change is predominantly about managing water resources more effectively, and protecting water supply. This principle needs to be agreed at all levels, and mutually reinforced from global to local and from local to global.
Walter Leal:Thank you all experts and participants for this very interesting chat! For those who missed some parts of it: a chat protocol will be made available soon. Thank you everyone!
Franziska Mannke:...so thank you all very much for sharing your insights and questions with us in this live chat session! We hope you all enjoyed this hour with our three experts.
Franziska Mannke:Please feel free to post your non-answered questions and carry on with the conversation via our conference discussion board!
Moritz Remig:This would be an extremely interesting topic - needs. Thanks very much for the discussion!
Moritz Remig:All the best from Potsdam.
Franziska Mannke:The chat will now close, we will make the chat log available online afterwards so those who missed this Q A session can read up anytime what we discussed in this hour.
Johan Kuylenstierna:I think Hanna and Moritz have been wonderful!! Excellent questions. The debate shows, again, the complexity of water and water management. We must be VERY CLEAR on what it is we would like to get out of global negotiations!
Hannah Stoddart:Thanks Johan, Moritz, Franziska, Walter.. And to Fikadu for the interesting question!
Johan Kuylenstierna:ICLEI and others have an important task there!
Franziska Mannke:We´re are very happy to had you all on board of this final chat session of CLIMATE 2010.

Bye for now everybody