This chapter analyses the extent to which national urban policy (NUP) addresses issues related to climate adaptation and mitigation, and related challenges and co-ordination mechanisms. Climate action features prominently in most NUPs within traditional urban planning priorities (e.g. the built environment) and among a growing share of NUPs exploring innovative mechanisms, such as local greenhouse gas emission inventories. Countries identify that urban climate interventions generate multiple, related benefits such as more sustainable mobility and reduced pollution. However, they also highlight knowledge gaps and a lack of co-ordination as challenges in integrating climate change in NUP.
Global State of National Urban Policy 2021
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action
7. Driving the zero-carbon transition and climate resilience through NUP
Abstract
Key findings
Most NUPs address both climate resilience and the low-carbon transition: 54 out of 67 responding countries (81%) report addressing climate change, of which 52 NUPs address climate change via both mitigation and adaptation measures. This underscores the growing recognition that applying an urban lens to climate change is important. In addition, nearly two‑thirds of the NUPs addressing climate change feature special measures to improve the resilience of vulnerable urban populations (31 out of 46 countries, 67%).
Two categories of NUP predominate: those that comprehensively address climate change, and those that serve as a portal to other sectoral climate policies. NUPs in the former category tend to overlap with those in the latter, but usually contain in-depth plans, strategies and discussions on climate change and urban policy. NUPs in the latter category have a lighter focus on climate change and urban areas, and instead link to corresponding sectoral plans. This does not suggest that countries with the latter type do not factor comprehensive climate plans in urban considerations, but rather that these considerations are not always fully reflected in their NUPs, which can be a missed opportunity.
Countries incorporate climate measures under the umbrella of traditional urban planning instruments in their NUPs for “quick wins”. Changes to the built environment for low-carbon urban development are prominent in NUPs, with public and active transport identified in 48 NUPs (89%), compact development in 40 (74%) and more sustainable buildings in 37 (69%). Risk reduction is also common, with NUPs prioritising vulnerability and risk assessments (34 countries, 63%), adopting risk-sensitive land use policies (32 countries, 59%), and nearly half (25 countries, 46%) implementing biodiversity and eco-system approaches, thereby demonstrating the potential of nature-based solutions.
Countries increasingly use NUPs to go beyond traditional urban policy by embedding less common climate considerations. Eleven NUPs (20%) link to efforts to improve the evidence base for climate action by developing local greenhouse gas emission inventories, and 10 (19%) link to carbon pricing and fiscal instruments to achieve climate objectives. Although such developments are not present in all NUPs, they indicate how NUPs guide non-traditional climate considerations in urban planning and pave the way for broader change.
Countries use institutional and capacity building mechanisms to co‑ordinate climate action in NUP but need improvement and attention to financing. More than half (30 countries, 55%) have institutional arrangements between the leading NUP ministry/agency and environment ministry, and 26 (47%) engage in knowledge exchanges and capacity building across these ministries. Fourteen countries (26%) provide financial incentives for investment in cities aligned with NUP objectives and only 5 (9%) develop mechanisms to track sub-national climate finance.
Common obstacles to integrating climate in the NUP are a lack of expertise at the intersection of climate change and urban policy (39% of respondents), and limited co‑ordination mechanisms between national and local levels on this subject (30%). Survey findings suggest the two challenges could be tackled at the same time.
Urgent need for climate action in cities
As the impacts of climate change worsen, cities have a role to drive and implement climate action. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13, the Paris Climate Agreement, the New Urban Agenda (NUA) and the Sendai Framework embody global commitment to climate resilience and the low-carbon transition, but the relative lack of attention to these agendas in national urban policy (NUP) reveals a need to integrate collective action across levels of government. (As Chapter 6 illustrates, 58 of 86 countries reported achieving the SDGs, 52 the NUA, 46 the Paris Agreement, and 29 the Sendai Framework.) This is an improvement from the first edition of the Global Monitoring of NUPs, which in 2018 revealed that out of 108 NUPs analysed, only 11 (10%) gave extensive attention to climate resilience and 28 (26%) to environmental sustainability.
Cities can reduce climate risks through adaptation and mitigation measures facilitated by an enabling framework such as NUP (Box 7.1). The well-documented risks and opportunities for transformative action posed by climate change in all countries, regions and cities underscore the case for countries to step up their efforts and adopt an integrated approach to climate challenges in their NUP. This chapter analyses how NUPs around the world integrate climate change in urban areas, by promoting a low-carbon transition (“mitigation”) and strengthening climate resilience (“adaptation”).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report, Global Warming of 1.5°C, shows the importance of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 (Bazaz et al., 2018[1]). Achieving climate-safe urban development will require decision-makers to factor emission reductions and climate resilience into all aspects of urban policy and planning – a daunting task. However, climate-compatible urban development can enable governments to achieve other development goals, such as higher economic productivity, better public health and improved local environments, while failing to address climate change will jeopardise prospects of sustainable, inclusive urban development. A key opportunity lies in developing urban green growth policies, which pursue synergies instead of trade-offs between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability in cities (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[3]).
Box 7.1. Enhancing cities’ potential for climate action through NUP
Analysis by the Stockholm Environment Institute for the Coalition for Urban Transitions found that, without further action to tackle climate change, greenhouse gas emissions attributable to urban buildings, transport and waste could reach 17.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2-e) in 2050 – 24% higher than in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed. Urban emissions would be even higher if industry and other sectors were included.
It is possible to reduce urban emissions from the selected sectors to 1.8 billion tCO2-e by 2050 using technically feasible, widely available low-carbon measures. These savings amount to 58% of the global energy-related emission reductions needed to realise the International Energy Agency’s 2°C pathway. However, over half of urban abatement potential is in cities with populations of less than 750 000 (as of 2015), which often lack the financial and technical resources of their larger counterparts. Even for cities with sufficient capacity, taking aggressive unilateral efforts to reduce emissions may be untenable if their economic peers fail to act. National support and standards are most important for these cities.
The analysis in Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity found that few low-carbon measures fall exclusively within the sphere of local government influence. National and state governments typically have primary authority over two-thirds of urban abatement potential. The importance of local action and multi-level governance becomes more apparent when excluding electricity decarbonisation from the analysis. In this case, national and regional governments influence 35% of urban abatement potential, while local governments are primarily accountable for 28%. For the remaining 37% of urban abatement potential, responsibilities vary and require collaborative climate action among tiers of government. The nature of such varies by country and policy area.
Embedding climate measures in a framework such as NUP guides climate action in cities across a country enhances national and sub-national governments’ ambition, and unlocks cities’ actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their exposure to climate risks. The transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient cities cannot be devolved solely to municipal authorities. It requires meaningful partnerships among tiers of government. NUPs can support this transition since NUPs cover a range of policy areas with a profound effect on climate policy goals and wellbeing benefits such as economic development, land-use, housing, transport, labour and health.
Source: Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.
Traction for climate resilience and the low-carbon transition
Climate resilience and the low-carbon transition gained traction as themes embraced by NUPs. Out of 67 responding countries, 54 (81%) report that their country’s NUP addresses climate change (Figure 7.1). Importantly, all but two of the NUPs that address climate change did so via both mitigation and adaptation measures. Russia reports that its NUP only addresses mitigation, and Slovakia reports that its NUP only addresses adaptation. Thirteen NUPs (19%) do not address either climate mitigation or adaptation.
Figure 7.1. Number of NUPs that explicitly address climate change, n = 67
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. The survey included three options for “Yes”: (1) “Yes, through both mitigation and adaptation measures; (2) “Yes, through mitigation measures”; (3) “Yes, through adaptation measures”.
Looking at five global regions, the share of NUPs addressing climate change is the highest in Asia and the Pacific (12 of 13 countries, or 92%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (10 of 11, or 91%) and Africa (10 of 12, or 83%). The share is slightly lower in Europe and North America (20 of 26, or 77%). However, three European countries (Austria, Estonia and Latvia) note that, although their NUPs do not address climate change, other national-level documents address the intersection of climate change and urban areas. Only two of five countries (40%) report that their NUPs address climate change.
Figure 7.2. Number of NUPs addressing climate change, by region, n = 67
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020
Costa Rica’s National Urban Development Policy 2018–2030 and corresponding Action Plan 2018–2022 feature “effective and efficient urban planning” as the first core pillar, focused on the importance of considering climate change and other environmental factors in a cross-sectoral way, specifically through three strategic areas: (1) incorporating a range of environmental considerations in urban and territorial planning instruments; (2) improving the adaptation capacity of urban infrastructure to mitigate natural risks and threats such as those tied to climate change; and (3) promoting the construction and operation of urban buildings and infrastructure with a positive net effect on natural and urban environments. Among other measures, the NUP seeks to prioritise the implementation of low-emission public transport to reduce private vehicle use, to enhance the treatment of organic solid waste to reduce methane emissions, and to promote sustainable and bioclimatic construction that makes use of natural lighting and ventilation to reduce both energy consumption and the need for air conditioning. In addition, an action underpinning the third strategic area was developing a National Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Plan, adopted in April 2018 to cover 2018‑30, which seeks to bolster the resilience of human and natural systems in urban and territorial planning priorities. In this way, Costa Rica seeks to ensure low-carbon and carbon-resilient urban infrastructure through co‑ordinated multi-sectoral planning.
Turkey’s Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning oversees for both urban development and climate change. Turkey’s Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan 2010–2023 (KENTGES) includes climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, such as building efficiency, sustainable transport, and water and waste management. The survey reports that the largely sectoral approach of KENTGES is expected to be complemented by a National Spatial Strategy Plan that should have a climate and urban aspects, thus addressing challenges related to co‑ordinating and distributing spatial planning responsibilities. In developing its National Spatial Strategy Plan, Turkey could look to the case of the Netherlands for inspiration (Box 7.2).
Box 7.2. The Netherlands’ Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment
Dutch cities face serious risks from climate change. Over 6 million people, 77% of the country’s urban population, live less than ten metres above sea level. However, the Netherlands has invested strategically in water management for centuries, so residents today benefit from a sophisticated infrastructure of flood defences and dykes. The 2019 Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment (NOVI) highlights the importance of a climate-resilient, water-robust built environment, accompanied by sufficient, open, green and blue infrastructure to mitigate heat stress and store water. Maintaining such open space demands densification of housing and employment within existing city boundaries. The Dutch strategy applies a spatial lens to its economic, social and environmental goals.
The strategy developed by the Netherlands pays close attention to the different needs and priorities of urban and rural areas, as well as the demands and preferences of different groups within those communities. The report explicitly states: “Not everyone shares the same ideals. Some people feel at home in a dynamic metropolis while others prefer to live in a far more rural setting. These diverging wishes mean that we must reach consensus on the choices we make and must be very deliberate in structuring our country”, (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands, 2019, p. 18[4]). The strategy further differentiates Dutch regions by their energy intensity, economic structure and connectivity to local and global markets. This analysis underscores different opportunities in a low-carbon transition, particularly the scope to generate renewable power and adopt different transport modes.
NOVI proposes that the regional level is the most relevant scale for shaping the built environment in an integrated way. Accordingly, provinces and municipalities are empowered to make these decisions, although water management is tasked to separate water authorities. The national government is tasked with supporting locally led efforts through funding, knowledge development and maintaining buildings and connective infrastructure. The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has overarching responsibility for monitoring progress towards implementation, and the relevance and effectiveness of the strategy.
Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020; Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands(2019), Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment; Coalition for Urban Transition (2019), The urban opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.
Countries do not always address climate change in-depth in NUP and may instead have detailed sectoral plans – a nuance in the survey results regarding the extent to which NUPs account for climate change. Certain countries state that their NUP does not address climate change because it is included in other policy frameworks. For example, while the NUP of Austria does not address climate change, the issue is addressed through the National Spatial Planning Strategy (ÖREK 2011). Colombia’s Law no. 1931 recognises the role of cities in climate action and was introduced in 2018 to manage the national response to climate change, while the country’s NUP also addresses climate change (Box 7.3). Viet Nam puts green growth at the core of its national development agenda, although it does not specify NUP coverage of climate issues. Its National Green Growth Strategy (2012) and National Green Growth Action Plan (2014) both speak to sustainable urbanisation. However, as of 2018, these environmental goals were not captured in the NUP (OECD, 2018[5]). The NUP could help unlock economic returns – including job creation potential, and the public health benefits associated with decentralised renewable technologies, energy efficiency measures and solid waste management – by providing a guiding framework.
Instead of detailing climate issues in their NUPs, certain countries describe and link to other stand-alone sectoral plans that focus on climate and urban areas. This approach effectively leverages the NUP as a “portal” to other policies and enabling framework to facilitate co‑ordination between other ministries and strategies to scale up local action. Therefore, the fact that a country does not provide a comprehensive overview of climate mitigation and adaptation in its NUP does not mean that the country is lagging, since it may well have effective strategies in other policies. However, a missed opportunity emerges where NUPs make no reference to existing sectoral plans on climate change and urban planning, since the NUP serves to improve co‑ordination between such plans by embedding them in an enabling framework.
Box 7.3. Colombia’s Law no. 1931 establishing guidelines for the management of climate change
In 2018, the Government of Colombia passed Law no. 1931 to establish guidelines for the management of climate change. This law intends to consolidate and harmonise policies, processes, institutions, strategies and mechanisms that were previously used to encourage action concerning climate change.
Law 1931 recognises the importance of cities as sites for climate action, both because they generate a large share of transport and waste emissions and because of the concentration of households at risk from floods, droughts and rising sea levels. Law 1931 commits the National Climate Change Policy to pursue low-carbon and climate-resilient urban development through eight lines of action:
Provide cities with urban infrastructure resilient to floods or rising sea levels.
Reduce the climate risk of water shortages in the city.
Provide efficient public transport alternatives.
Encourage the constant reduction in solid and liquid waste generation.
Encourage residential and non-residential energy efficiency.
Reduce flood exposure and transport emissions through controlled expansion of cities.
Promote the conservation of the main ecosystem.
Generate scientific knowledge to quantify CO2 capture.
The Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development heads the National Climate Change Policy and draws on the Ministry of Housing, City and Territory; the Ministry of Transport; and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. Each of these is expected to develop Comprehensive Management Plans for Sectoral Climate Change, defining specific measures needed to deliver the eight actions. Although governance is primarily sectoral, Colombian municipalities are encouraged to apply a spatial lens by identifying areas of the city where development of human settlements is not viable and directing urban expansion towards places that do not put either urban residents or ecosystems at risk.
Note: figures draw from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Expertise and co‑ordination to integrate climate change and urban policy
The main challenge highlighted by the survey to integrating climate change in NUP is “the lack of expertise and interdisciplinary knowledge on the intersection of climate change and urban policy” (25 of 67 responding countries, or 37%) (Figure 7.3). This indicates the need for greater support in terms of technical capacity and knowledge in this field. A synergistic second challenge is the “lack of co‑ordination mechanisms across national and local governments responsible for climate action and urban policy” (20 countries, 30%). In New Zealand, the National Climate Change Risk Assessment provides an overview of the risks associated with climate change and trends in emissions, but the country has limited insight into the intersection of climate change and cities, such as the degree to which urban systems generate emissions and could contribute to mitigation efforts. In Portugal, the national government does not sponsor local governments to undertake mitigation plans, which proves an obstacle to implementing coherent low-carbon territorial plans. The lack of expertise, data and interdisciplinary knowledge may reflect that government officials do not systematically work together across sectoral siloes. It is thus not surprising that 12 countries, including Brazil, Italy, Korea, Lebanon, Malawi and Mexico, also identify the two as the highest-ranking challenges.
Figure 7.3. Challenges to integrating climate change in NUPs, n = 67
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Governance arrangements that facilitate co-production of evidence and cross-fertilisation of ideas across ministries may help to overcome the biggest barriers to creating climate-sensitive NUP. Tanzania’s Urban Laboratory (TULab) provides one such example. Over two years, TULab regularly convened Tanzanian urbanists from national ministries, local governments, state-owned enterprises, academia, civil society and the private sector. These stakeholders commissioned, deliberated and published four background papers documenting challenges and opportunities for Tanzanian cities, including low-carbon development paths and emerging climate hazards (TULab, 2019[6]). This body of evidence now informs the development of Tanzania’s National Urban Policy. New Zealand established a co-ordination mechanism for its NUP through a cross-agency working group between the Ministry for Environment and the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development. While the working group does not yet focus on the interaction between climate change and urban matters, it marks an instance of planned co‑ordination (New Zealand’s NUP is in the diagnosis stage). In addition, if the working group focuses explicitly on the intersection of climate change and urban policy, this could serve to bridge the climate-urban expertise and knowledge gap signalled by New Zealand.
One of the lowest-ranking challenges, “the benefit of integrating climate action in a NUP is not well understood/shared among national policymakers” (8 countries, 12%), may indicate increasing recognition of the need for an integrated approach to climate change in NUP. Similarly, the lowest ranking challenge, “national policymakers do not perceive climate change as a policy area to be addressed in the NUP” (7 countries, 10%) would indicate that NUPs are acknowledged at the national level as effective and relevant policy frameworks to guide and implement climate action.
In total, 30 countries identify multiple obstacles to integrating climate change into NUP, while 11 countries identify only one. Among these 11 countries, Bolivia and Estonia indicate that national policymakers either do not understand or agree on the potential benefits of integrating climate action into their NUP, although Estonia indicates that this issue was largely resolved since its NUP was drawn up in 2014. Cuba, Japan and Slovakia identify insufficient budget to integrate climate issues into their NUPs as the sole obstacle, while Guatemala and Serbia emphasise the challenge of co‑ordinating relevant national ministries. France, Ireland and Romania report the lack of expertise and interdisciplinary knowledge at the intersection of climate change and urban policy as an issue. While pointing out the same challenge, Chile addresses it by forming a “City and Climate Change” working group with participation by academia to develop policy recommendations.
Recognising benefits from mainstreaming climate action
In their objectives for mainstreaming climate action in NUP, countries identify that urban climate interventions generate multiple, related benefits (Figure 7.4). Out of 54 countries that report their NUP addresses climate change, 36 (67%) identify “more sustainable mobility” and “reduced pollution”, and 35 (65%) identify “reduced greenhouse gas emissions” as objectives for their NUP, reflecting clear recognition that low-carbon transport measures can achieve health and well-being benefits in cities through improved air quality. Thirty-four countries (63%) identify “better protected lives and livelihoods from extreme weather” and 33 (61%) identify “enhanced urban biodiversity and ecosystems” as objectives, underscoring the potential for nature-based solutions to improve wellbeing, deliver wider ecosystem services and protect against extreme heat or flooding. Similarly, 31 countries (57%) identified “more risk-sensitive land use” as an objective, reflecting the economic and spatial synergies of urban resilience measures.
Figure 7.4. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, n = 54
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Underscoring the emphasis placed on addressing adaptation and mitigation together, 34 and 35 countries respectively identify “better protected lives and livelihoods from extreme weather” and “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” For example, connected with Israel’s NUP is the inter-ministerial plan Israel 2050: Thriving Economy in a Sustainable Environment, which has indicators, roadmaps and policies to promote energy efficiency in buildings; increase minimum density requirements and mixed-use, transit-oriented development (including urban regeneration); and deliver greater urban tree canopy coverage, supported by a dedicated manual for planting shade trees in urban areas. A related policy to enhance water runoff management in urban areas is promoted simultaneously. “Enhancing biodiversity, natural heritage and ecosystem services in cities” and “more risk-sensitive land use in urban areas” also featured as a key objective for 33 and 31 countries respectively, hinting at the potential to combine the implementation of nature-based solutions with risk-sensitive land-use planning to enhance resilience and deliver numerous benefits.
Only 17 respondents indicate “increased local energy production in cities” as an objective, which may reflect the perception of limited potential to generate energy within a city’s boundaries (e.g. through rooftop solar) or that it may be difficult to implement such measures on a wide scale. Panama identifies local energy production as an objective, highlighting that doing so would reduce energy costs, which are high in the country, as well as emissions. Israel, Rwanda and Senegal highlight local energy production from renewable sources as an opportunity, as do Colombia and Portugal who also link to wider efforts to improve energy demand management, notably in buildings. It is striking that only 15 national governments regard “improved economic competitiveness and job creation” as a reason to integrate climate change into national urban policies, despite growing evidence of the potential productivity and efficiency advantages for growth and employment associated with lower-carbon, climate-resilient urban development.
Analysis by five global regions indicates that objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP reflect each region’s urgent urban challenges (Table 7.1). For example, “sustainable mobility” is particularly relevant to countries in Europe and North America, noted by 16 out of 20 countries (80%), whereas “reduced air and water pollution in cities” ranks higher for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (80%) and Asia and the Pacific (75%). Six of 10 countries (60%) in Africa, the highest share across the regions, consider “improved economic competitiveness and job creation in cities” as an objective.
Table 7.1. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, by region, n = 54
Number of respondents and relative regional share for each option
Note: Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Country respondents could select multiple options.
Delivering mitigation targets through traditional and new approaches
In terms of urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions that addressed in countries’ NUP, changes to the built environment are clear priorities for lower-carbon urban development (Figure 7.5). Mode shift to public and active transport appears in the NUP of 48 countries, mixed land use and compact development in 40 countries, and more sustainable buildings in 37 countries. Chile, Colombia, Israel and Portugal point to measures across cities to improve public transport (e.g. bus fleets) and bicycle infrastructure, while countries such as France and the Netherlands also set objectives to prioritise compact cities (e.g. minimum density standards) and limit urban sprawl. Technological shifts are a common strategy, with 29 NUPs including “expansion of urban renewable energy generation or procurement of energy from cleaner sources”. Twenty-six NUPs seek to improve the “sustainability of solid and liquid waste management”, and 25 aim to pursue “more efficient and electric vehicles”.
NUPs are also used beyond traditional urban policy to embed innovative climate considerations that are not yet widespread. Eleven countries (e.g. Colombia, Korea, Poland and Serbia) are looking to improve their evidence base by supporting the development of local greenhouse gas emission inventories. Ten countries (e.g. Ecuador, Finland, Italy and Senegal) report addressing carbon pricing and fiscal instruments – essential means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Box 7.4) – in their NUPs to achieve climate objectives. While such developments are not uniform and account for a limited share of NUPs, they indicate how NUPs guide non-traditional climate considerations and set the path for broader change.
Figure 7.5. Urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Ten NUPs, including those of Costa Rica, Croatia, Nigeria, Panama and the Philippines, attempt to instigate behavioural change by raising awareness. The relatively low reported share of awareness raising may be because governments pursue such efforts in stand-alone policies not yet embedded in their NUP, marking a missed opportunity. The absence could also signal governments’ reluctance to call upon their own citizens to take climate action, perhaps because this may be perceived as either too intrusive or not having a large enough impact to warrant such a request.
In 2014, France’s National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) launched the New National Programme for Urban Renewal. The programme, which will run until 2030 with EUR 10 billion grant-equivalent, aims to transform over 450 priority urban neighbourhoods (3 million inhabitants) based on objectives such as boosting energy efficiency in buildings and fostering access to services (alternative mobility options, education, healthcare). The programme features citizen councils involved in the design, implementation and evaluation stages of project development. As part of this programme, ANRU brings together a network of private investors and other stakeholders involved in innovation, in a body called the Club ANRU+, launched in 2017. Club ANRU+ invested EUR 50 million to stimulate innovation and mobilise investment in 70 urban renewal territories. The programme directly supports local initiatives spanning urban agriculture, digital technology, town planning, energy performance, sustainable mobility, participatory decision-making and housing. These projects enhance the attractiveness, social diversity and functional mix of communities, drawing major investors such as real estate operations. The programme also supports learning across different neighbourhoods and actors, enabling scaling a range of low-carbon and other measures.
In Mexico, local governments are in charge of preparing Municipal Urban Development Programmes. These craft a vision for the future of the municipality, taking into account general urban trends and a wide range of data. The programmes often have an ecological aspect. In Piedras Negras, Coahuila, for example, the Master Plan encourages infill development and preserves areas of particular ecological significance to enhance climate mitigation and adaptation.
Box 7.4. Carbon pricing and fiscal instruments for climate action
The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices chaired by Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern considers that carbon prices would need to be at least USD 40-80/tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2-e) by 2020, and USD 50-100/tCO2-e by 2030, to be in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Yet most countries fall short of this target: fewer than 5% of GHG emissions covered by a carbon price are within this range (World Bank, 2020[7]). Effective carbon taxes – the sum of explicit carbon taxes and fuel excise taxes – among 44 countries (36 OECD countries and 12 partner economies) currently fail to provide broad-based carbon price signals: 82% of non-road emissions are entirely untaxed, and 97%of those taxed are at the low end of the carbon pricing threshold at less than EUR 30/ tCO2-e (OECD, 2019[8]). Unsurprisingly, carbon prices reduce emissions. Countries that levy higher effective carbon taxes are also less carbon-intensive (OECD, 2019[8]). Without adequate carbon price signals, businesses and citizens lack economic incentives to modify behaviours or may lack awareness of the carbon footprint and societal cost associated with their activities.
National governments increasingly introduce carbon pricing and fiscal instruments – or authorise local governments to do so – that incentivise more sustainable urban development. As of 2020, 46 countries (and 32 sub-national jurisdictions) implemented a carbon pricing initiative, including emerging economies such as Chile, China, Colombia, Mexico and South Africa (World Bank, 2020[7]). For example, fuel taxes and vehicle excises are commonly adopted at the national level, disincentivising private vehicle use across the whole territory. Congestion charging, where polluting vehicles are charged a fee to circulate in certain areas, was adopted in cities in the Czechia, Italy, Malta, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Even the design of instruments without a seemingly direct impact on emissions, such as property taxes and mortgage policies, has considerable impact on whether cities become sprawling, with large carbon footprints, or denser and spatially efficient (Moreno Monroy et al., 2020[9]). While carbon pricing and such instruments have profound effects on the carbon intensity of urban areas, they are not always considered in conjunction with national urban and climate policies as evidenced by the responses to this survey.
Source: OECD (2019), Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes for Climate Action; https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/058ca239-en. World Bank (2020), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809; Moreno Monroy, A. et al. (2020), Housing policies for sustainable and inclusive cities: How national governments can deliver affordable housing and compact urban development, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d63e9434-en.
Reinforced climate resilience through risk reduction
Risk-sensitive measures feature prominently among the urban climate-adaptation actions addressed in countries’ NUPs. The most common was to “conduct a comprehensive vulnerability and risk assessment focusing on urban areas (including mapping)” (34 countries, 63%) (Figure 7.6). This may reflect many countries’ lack of evidence on current and projected localised climate risks needed to make informed urban policies and plans. It may also reflect the simultaneous opportunity to address other hazards and risks, such as natural disasters and service deficits. This adaptation action is followed closely by “adopting risk sensitive land use policies” (32 countries, 59%) and “implementing ecosystem-based approaches” (25 countries, 46%). These actions are complementary and low-cost, with evidence pointing to the role of nature-based solutions in enhancing urban resilience while delivering social and health benefits (Bush and Doyon, 2019[10]), which might explain the appetite for these interventions.
Mexico’s NUP fosters comprehensive risk management, including land use and urban development instruments, building regulations, and the design of financial schemes, to define projects and actions focused on reducing vulnerability in urban areas. Algeria is adopting risk-sensitive land-use policies to ensure that urban development takes place outside hazardous areas, including the development of an eco-neighbourhood in Ghardaia, and Algiers’ pilot Master Plan for Urban Resilience, expected to be replicated across other cities. Serbia’s Sustainable Urban Development Strategy 2030 features climate change mitigation and adaptation as a cross-cutting topic and, recently, local government units elaborated local climate change adaptation plans (Bečej, Vrbas, Sombor, Ub, Belgrade, Kraljevo and Zrenjanin). Nigeria’s 2012 NUP does not reflect the need for urban climate adaptation, but this is under consideration in the ongoing NUP review process. In the Netherlands, climate adaptation is not addressed in the NUP but in the long-standing Delta Programme, which rigorously addresses risk assessment.
The least common adaptation actions addressed in NUPs are to “develop diversified financing mechanisms to address climate-related risks in urban areas” (5 countries) and “develop a strategy for urban heat island” – strikingly low given the impacts of climate change on cities around the world, and the need for financing mechanisms to allow communities and businesses to recover from extreme events. Diversifying risk financing mechanisms before rather than after an extreme event occurs offers advantages relative to ad hoc financial support (OECD, 2018[11]). The NUPs of Brazil, Costa Rica, Croatia, Panama, Portugal, Senegal and Spain seek to address urban heat-island-related challenges, but these account for only 13% of the 53 responding countries. Not all cities in the world face urban heat island challenges to the same extent, which may account for the low overall share, but the gap is striking given the growing prevalence and impacts of urban heat islands. In addition, as 45% of NUPs seek to implement ecosystem or nature-based solutions, proven to alleviate extreme heat (Jamei and Tapper, 2019[12]), there is an opportunity for co-benefits from urban heat island strategies in NUPs, such as developing green/blue infrastructure in areas impacted by high temperatures or with a high share of vulnerable residents.
Similarly, only 16 countries report “mainstreaming climate resilience into infrastructure”, despite its importance in mitigating risk. In New Zealand, the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (the legislation providing for its NUP under development) details how Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities (the government’s lead developer) should recognise climate adaptation. Thailand’s NUP development guideline calls for new infrastructure safety standards to be resilient to disasters.
The following countries indicate that their NUP addressed all or nearly all 10 climate adaptation actions (excluding “other”): Panama and Senegal (all 10 options), Tanzania (9), and Cabo Verde, Costa Rica and the Philippines (8). This may indicate that urban areas or an important share of urban residents in these countries are at particularly risk to a changing climate, or that these NUPs are particularly proactive on climate adaptation. Korea, Spain and Turkey identified seven options, and Japan and Poland six options.
Figure 7.6. Urban climate adaptation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Co-ordination mechanisms to embed climate action in NUP
Mechanisms need improvement and attention to financing
Countries use institutional and capacity building mechanisms to co-ordinate climate action in NUP but need improvement and attention to financing. Countries lack mechanisms to co-ordinate climate action in their NUPs: 30 of 54 countries with NUP addressing climate (55%) identified institutional arrangements between the leading NUP ministry/agency and environment ministry as a mechanism to co‑ordinate climate action (Figure 7.7). This suggests room to increase the share of countries with a clear institutional arrangement between key ministries to co‑ordinate climate action. Zambia, for instance, identifies four relevant institutions involved in formulating its NUP: the Zambia Environmental Agency, the Ministry of National Development Planning, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit. Twenty-six of 54 countries (48%) confirm having cross-sectoral knowledge exchanges and capacity building across ministries responsible for urban and environmental issues, which signals room for improvement in this area. For example, in Portugal, the Environment Agency assembled several ministries to produce and monitor the National Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Many countries enable or require sub-national climate action in cities, but use different policy instruments: regulatory frameworks (21 countries, 39%), technical assistance (17 countries, 31%), financial incentives (14 countries, 26%). As an example of technical assistance, Cuba conducts workshops with planning specialists every year so that civil servants from a range of sectors become familiar with spatial aspects of reducing climate vulnerability (focusing on coastal settlements). It is worth noting that Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Estonia and Sweden do not detail these mechanisms in their NUP but in their climate policy frameworks, which often sit within different ministries. Co‑ordination between these agencies is therefore critical to ensure that urban and climate plans reinforce each other rather than create conflicting incentives or administrative burdens for sub-national governments.
The least common mechanism in NUPs was “developing mechanisms to track sub-national climate finance” (5 countries, 9%), in line with recent OECD work that confirms the limited data to track climate finance at the sub-national level (OECD, 2019[13]).
Figure 7.7. Mechanisms for co‑ordination of climate action in NUPs, n = 54
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Regulatory mechanisms commonly employed
The NUP survey asked respondents for examples of the mechanisms (e.g. regulatory, fiscal, information) used to implement climate action in their NUPs. Thirty-one respondents offered a range of examples, while two indicated no examples to share yet as the work is ongoing (Brazil and Cabo Verde).
Regulatory mechanisms seem to be the preferred instruments, with regulations, guidelines and strategies mentioned by most countries. In France, the National Urban Renewal Agency and the Environment and Energy Management Agency implement a partnership to factor urban sustainability paramteres into urban renewal projects for 2018–22 (Box 7.5). Israel instates regulations for all new construction to comply with the Green Building Code (effective March 2022), develops specifications and regulation for net-zero energy buildings where feasible, and updates the minimum density requirements laid out in the NUP. Zambia reports that the draft NUP includes activities to build the capacity of local authorities to enforce existing national-level environmental laws, formulate by-laws at local level, and establish fast-track courts for environmental offenders.
Six high- and upper-middle-income countries mention fiscal instruments: Bulgaria, France, Israel, Netherlands, Serbia and Sweden. Instruments include both grants and subsidies directly for climate action and infrastructure investments to enhance climate outcomes. Five countries identify technical assistance to or capacity building of sub-national governments, while four emphasise information instruments. Finally, Sweden highlights the importance of institutional reforms to enable co‑ordination across levels and sectors of government, with agreements between national and local governments.
Box 7.5. France’s national co‑ordination to embed sustainability factors in urban renewal projects
France’s National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) and the Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) implement a partnership to factor urban sustainability parameters into urban renewal projects for 2018-22. This partnership formalises the objectives and methods of co‑operation between the two agencies – from implementation to monitoring and evaluation – in the areas of innovation and the ecological transition.
Three themes feature in an action plan renewed yearly:
Linking neighbourhood-level environmental approaches with territorial strategy by factoring in “AEU2” (environmental approaches to urban planning), energy renovation of buildings, changes in transport and mobility, land use planning and urban form, environmental preservation and health (air quality, noise, soil and ecosystem management), and the circular economy.
Within the context of the energy strategy, reducing residents’ energy use by prioritising energy efficiency, improved energy storage and management, and on-site production and consumption of energy, accounting for expected future 2020 environmental regulations.
Embedding innovation and experimentation through support for projects under the “future-oriented investment programmes” (programmes d'investissements d'avenir).
Improving the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations
Thirty-one of 46 countries (67%) state that they ensure their NUP can improve the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations (Figure 7.8). It is worth noting that 8 of the 15 countries who report ‘no’ are from Europe and North America. These countries might have (or at least perceive to) a lower share of vulnerable groups exposed to such risks, explaining why countries in the other regions pay more attention to this factor. Certain countries might have a greater share of vulnerable groups in cities or be more exposed to urban climate risks for a range of geographic, climatological and socio-economic factors, but all cities and countries have populations at risk, which they can support by scaling-up resilience measures through NUP frameworks. In short, all countries should aim to improve the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations through NUP, regardless of the country context. While examples exist among NUPs, this remains an area where NUPs could include tailored measures for vulnerable groups, such as establishing stronger links to existing efforts in other sectoral plans.
Some countries emphasise planning and infrastructure to reduce exposure to environmental risks. Israel’s NUP emphasises the vulnerability of certain populations (such as children and the elderly) to air pollution, heat waves and other climate impacts, and emphasises the need to apply social considerations in public planning. Rwanda’s NUP seeks to enhance access to services and infrastructure for people living in informal settlements, upgrade their housing and services where possible, and facilitate relocation from hazardous locations. Chile’s NUP emphasises the risks of natural hazards faced by territories. It supports municipalities in collecting data on environmental threats and proposes to incorporate natural risks in territorial planning instruments.
Other countries focus on redressing the power imbalances that drive vulnerability, by creating space to hear low-income and other marginalised voices (Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2017[15]). Ecuador, Mexico and Senegal’s NUPs emphasise participatory processes to enhance inclusion and address the drivers of vulnerability. Costa Rica’s NUP includes human rights and social inclusion components, which require local governments to treat and meet the needs of all citizens equally. Cuba’s NUP has similar mandates to reduce vulnerabilities. It is not clear whether these commitments are backed by commensurate budgets and capacities.
Figure 7.8. Number and share of NUPs incorporating special measures to improve resilience of vulnerable urban populations to climate change, n = 46
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. No information was available for eight countries of the 54 responding countries.
Ways forward
Fifty-four of 67 countries (81%) report that their NUP addresses climate change. Except Slovakia, whose NUP only addresses adaptation, and Russia, whose NUP only addresses mitigation, the other 52 NUPs all address climate change via both mitigation and adaptation measures. This highlights a common recognition of adopting integrated, non-siloed approaches to addressing climate change in NUPs, without prioritising climate mitigation at the expense of adaptation (or vice versa).
Based on qualitative responses to the survey, two categories of NUP emerge regarding climate change: (1) NUPs that comprehensively address climate change, and (2) NUPs that serve as a “portal” to other sectoral climate policies.
NUPs in the first category typically provide in-depth plans and strategies, sometimes including targets or indicators, on the intersection of climate change and urban policy. They also often link to other stand-alone sectoral climate policies – fulfilling an objective of effective NUP – and thus overlap with the second category.
NUPs in the second category focus less on climate change and instead link to corresponding stand-alone sectoral policies related to climate and urban policy. This approach remains effective since it leverages the role of NUP as a “portal” to other policies, enabling co‑ordination between ministries and strategies to scale up action across many cities. In other words, just because a country does not provide an overview of climate mitigation and adaptation in its NUP does not mean it lags behind, since it might have strategies in other policies. However, a missed opportunity emerges where NUP makes no reference to other sectoral plans on climate change and urban policy, since NUPs improve co‑ordination by embedding such plans in an overarching framework. NUP bridges gaps and enhances co‑ordination across specialised ministries and levels of government, especially on complex issues such as climate change that have not always been a consideration in urban development.
All countries that include climate change in their NUP are aware of local or global benefits, ranging from improved air and water quality, to enhanced mobility and greater economic competitiveness. This suggests that these benefits motivate including climate objectives in NUP. The most common obstacles to integrating climate change into NUP are a lack of expertise and co‑ordination on the urban-climate nexus. Institutional platforms to pool evidence and identify actions that contribute to both development and climate goals will be important to both the political appetite for low-carbon, climate-resilient development and overcoming capacity gaps that hinder action. Countries at all levels of development – including Ecuador, Japan, Sweden, Zambia – identify institutional arrangements as critical to building knowledge and aligning urban climate actions.
Cases where NUP does not address climate change (13) may be attributable to several factors: (1) national governments might address climate change at the urban scale in policy frameworks not linked to their NUP; (2) national governments might not perceive added-value in integrating climate change with their NUP; (3) national governments might not address urban considerations in climate change due to a lack of co-ordination or knowledge of the importance of the issue; (4) national governments might be unaware of whether their NUP addresses climate change because it is not a prominent theme. Researching these and their implications in depth is urgent considering evidence on the role of NUPs in achieving the Paris Agreement and holding global warming well below 2°C (Box 7.1).
Several countries that responded to this survey – Austria, Cuba, Portugal, Turkey – emphasise applying a spatial lens to sectoral decision-making, enabling national governments to harness the proximity and density advantages associated with cities. These also pertain to the climate by reducing the per-capita cost of infrastructure to meet people’s needs, including low-carbon options (such as mass transit and district heating or cooling) and infrastructure that reduces people’s vulnerability to climate risks (such as sewers, piped water and reliable electricity). Spatially sensitive decision-making requires robust data and co‑ordination at the local level, so it is little surprise that clear guidelines, technical assistance and fiscal support to municipal authorities are widely used to implement the climate elements of a NUP.
These insights suggest countries should leverage the role of NUP as connector of urban and climate-related ministries, through bridging knowledge gaps and enhancing inter-ministerial co-ordination to scale up climate action, and embed more diverse and innovative environmental policy instruments in NUPs, such as carbon pricing to reduce emissions, taking into account their distributional effects on vulnerable groups. More specifically:
Countries should address climate change in their NUP and lay the foundation for urban resilience to prepare for and recover from crises, as with the COVID-19 pandemic. The country survey found that 31 of 84 NUPs (37%) do not address climate change. This indicates that greater efforts are needed, even if specific modalities differ. Addressing climate change and strengthening urban resilience through NUPs is even more important in the context of COVID-19, which fundamentally altered how cities operate and will develop for years to come, namely with the push to build greener, inclusive, and smart cities.
NUPs and their implementation frameworks should bridge expertise, knowledge and co‑ordination gaps on cities and climate change. Countries identify “the lack of expertise on the intersection of climate change and urban policy” and “limited co‑ordination mechanisms between levels of government on this subject” as the two most common obstacles to integrating climate change in their NUP and scaling up low-carbon and resilient cities. The NUP processes should provide opportunities to bridge such gaps and enhance co‑ordination between lead NUP ministries and ministries in charge of climate change.
Countries should redouble efforts to ensure their NUPs improve the resilience of vulnerable urban populations to the impacts of climate change. Sixty percent of NUPs that address climate change include measures to achieve this outcome in the NUP process, which is encouraging but not sufficient. All countries should aim to improve the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations through their NUPs, regardless of country context.
Countries should embed diverse and innovative approaches to urban climate action in their NUPs, to scale up action and bridge gaps. Given the potential of urban climate action, NUPs should actively accelerate climate measures – not only those traditionally within the remit of urban policy (e.g. public transport), but also innovative approaches, such as carbon pricing and other fiscal instruments to reduce emissions, which are less frequently reported.
Annex 7.A. Assessing how NUPs address climate change
This table provides qualitative information provided by countries on how their NUP addresses climate change via both mitigation and adaptation.
Annex Table 7.A.1. How NUPs address climate change
References
[1] Bazaz, A. et al. (2018), Summary for Urban Policymakers: What the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Means for Cities, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/.
[10] Bush, J. and A. Doyon (2019), “Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: How can urban planning contribute?”, Cities, Vol. 95, p. 102483, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483.
[18] Coalition for Urban Transition (2019), The Urban Opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.
[16] Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.
[15] Colenbrander, S., D. Dodman and D. Mitlin (2017), “Using climate finance to advance climate justice: The politics and practice of channelling resources to the local level”, Climate Policy, Vol. 18/7, pp. 902-915, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1388212.
[17] Government of the Netherlands (2019), Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment (NOVI).
[12] Jamei, E. and N. Tapper (2019), “WSUD and urban heat island effect mitigation”, in Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design, Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812843-5.00019-8.
[4] Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands (2019), “Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment: A sustainable perspective for our living environment”, https://www.denationaleomgevingsvisie.nl/publicaties/english+versions/default.aspx#folder=1451456.
[9] Moreno Monroy, A. et al. (2020), “Housing policies for sustainable and inclusive cities: How national governments can deliver affordable housing and compact urban development”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2020/03, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d63e9434-en.
[13] OECD (2019), “Financing climate objectives in cities and regions to deliver sustainable and inclusive growth”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 17, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ee3ce00b-en.
[8] OECD (2019), Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes for Climate Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/058ca239-en.
[11] OECD (2018), Building Resilient Cities: An Assessment of Disaster Risk Management Policies in Southeast Asia, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264305397-en.
[5] OECD (2018), OECD Urban Policy Reviews: Viet Nam, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264286191-en.
[3] OECD (2016), Urban Green Growth in Dynamic Asia, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266360-en.
[2] OECD (2013), Green Growth in Cities, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195325-en.
[14] OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
[6] TULab (2019), Harnessing Urbanisation for Development: Roadmap for Tanzania’s Urban Development Policy, Tanzania Urbanisation Laboratory, https://urbantransitions.global/en/publication/harnessing-urbanisation-for-development-roadmap-for-tanzanias-urban-development-policy/.
[7] World Bank (2020), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809.