Towards a typology of local sustainability processes
Ania ROK, Stefan KUHN, June 2012
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability
As explained in the previous chapter, twenty years after the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, local sustainability processes can be characterized neither by a common name nor a common methodology. One may argue that it is precisely this flexibility that makes them flourish in so many different political, legal and economic settings, but it certainly does not make them easy to describe. How to make sense of the diversity of local sustainability processes and learn from their experience so far?
The traditional approach to describing complex, global phenomena is to adopt a regional perspective, grouping countries with somewhat similar framework conditions. In the case of local sustainability processes, it could mean looking for a “typical” European or South Asian process, an approach followed by the previous 2001 assessment. The initial concept for this study was to repeat a similar exercise a decade later. However it was quickly discovered that a purely “European” or “South Asian” local sustainability process did not exist in any meaningful sense, whereas similarities occur between countries located in very different parts of the globe: France and Malaysia, Finland and Ecuador, Poland and India, among others. What worked ten years ago, it seems, no longer fits the reality.
To paint a clearer picture of the phenomenon in question, this study proposes a different, governance-oriented and qualitative approach that focuses on initial driving forces behind local processes. It has been widely acknowledged that in order to advance sustainable development on a global scale a multi-level effort is needed. However, the real question is how the different levels of governance can work together, to make the most of their individual strengths while mutually supporting each other. The approach adopted by this study aims to shed some light on this particular question, drawing on the experience of thousands of local sustainability processes worldwide.
The following chapter presents five main types of local sustainability processes, characterized by the political level and the type of organization that initiated them:
Local Government Strategy
Civil Society Initiative
For each of the types, two typical manifestations (or subtypes) are identified, illustrated with one or more examples. Following initial drafting the typology turned out to be a good framework for analyzing the information collected for the study, even if certain categories needed to be extended to accommodate the diversity of the processes observed (e.g. city-to-city cooperation or the development of eco-towns). Although most local processes include elements of more than one of the types listed above, singling out the key driving force can offer a more in-depth understanding of characteristics, strengths and weaknesses inherent in a certain type of process. In addition, tracking the development of each type over time gives a valuable insight into typical problems faced by different processes, depending on how were they initiated.
As is the case in every typology, the one offered below is – admittedly and purposefully – a simplification, focused on black and white rather than on shades of grey. The aim is not to collect and describe every initiative undertaken locally but to contribute to better understanding the development of local sustainability processes and distil critical issues for further progress, with a focus on the potential and limits of different framework conditions.
1 - Type 1: Local Government Strategy
Local sustainability is often portrayed as a moral choice, a matter of the heart rather than of reason. To a certain extent it is of course a moral choice, but for the majority of local governments worldwide local sustainability is about rational decisions, driven by cost-effectiveness calculations and a risk management approach. It should come as no surprise then that many local sustainability processes are initiated by local government leaders or employees who see the potential benefits such processes can bring to their own city or town.
Locally initiated processes are often oriented towards local rather than global objectives, but, in the case of sustainable development, local actions cumulate into global changes. Even though the improvement of local sustainability performance can be achieved by partly shifting the burden elsewhere (e.g. importing energy-intensive products from other countries), this is only possible in a short-term perspective. Experience of local sustainability pioneers shows that opening a discussion on sustainable development on the local level eventually leads to addressing issues that go beyond the local scale, emphasizing global interdependence and interconnectedness.
Facing structural economic changes, being affected by crisis or losing competitiveness on the global market, cities are no strangers to the idea of global interdependence. A radical redefinition of local policies and targets is seen as a solution in the face of the crisis, be it natural, economic or political. By re-orienting their development alongside sustainability criteria, the pioneers often set new, more sustainable standards for all local governments in their country. As shown by the examples cited below, the impact of local initiatives may go even further, influencing policies in other cities and countries.
Out of all the five types presented here this one is the most dependent on individual leadership. Such a person, often a charismatic local leader, might be committed to sustainable development but not necessarily: what matters is the courage to innovate and an ability to engage others. To minimize the risk of local sustainability processes being abandoned when the political situation in the city changes, community buy-in and focus on the institutionalization of the process are decisive.
However, there is a price to pay for being the first one. Some of the most ambitious cities complain that it can be lonely at the top, particularly on the national scale. Honoured with awards and invited to share best practices, frontrunners have few opportunities to support their further growth. Those that are eager to continue blazing new trails enter the international scene looking for partners with similar challenges. Others choose to rest on their laurels, capitalizing on the image earned with earlier successes.
1.1 - Up from the ashes – crisis as the catalyst for change
A local crisis or conflict, related for example to waste management or water pollution can trigger a radical re-orientation of local policies, with the impacts often reaching regional, national or even higher levels. As the recent UN Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean report concludes:
“Environmental conflicts, especially those where there has been very active public participation in terms of providing ideas, information and possible solutions, tend to create opportunities for positive change by tabling issues and options that have never been considered before.”}1
A good example comes from the city of Surat in Gujarat, India, where the 1994 plague outbreak lead to legal action being taken by citizens against the state, demanding solid waste management to be appropriately regulated. Following this case, in 2000 the government of India adopted the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, applying to all Indian municipalities. As for the city of Surat, in 1997 it was awarded as the second cleanest city in India.
In Central America, with its history of natural disasters, local governments have unfortunately learned the hard way that implementing sustainable development on the local level is the best way of preventing or limiting damage. A lot of those new policies were born in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, which devastated the region in 1998. A similar phenomenon can already be noticed in Japan, severely damaged by the earthquake, tsunami and ensuing nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima in 2011. Even though Japanese municipalities have long embraced local sustainability policies following a requirement from the national government, a crisis of this magnitude naturally results in a change of direction. What’s more, living in a globalized world means that the lessons from natural and man-made disasters can greatly impact on policies at the other end of the planet, as illustrated by the recent decision of the German government to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima accident.
The experience of many European sustainability champions shows that an economic crisis can also trigger new, more sustainable development trajectories. With European industrial landscape undergoing a seismic shift in the 1980s, many local governments were facing a double challenge of finding a new, non-industrial identity while dealing with the damages stemming from their industrial past. Be it Malmö in Sweden or Newcastle in the UK, those and other cities successfully overcame structural economic change, joining forces with local businesses and civil society. The industrial past is preserved as a cultural heritage and the new focus is on environmentally friendly business development.
1.2 - Urban visionaries - setting the standards internally and for others
The examples above are a testimony to the transformative power of the crisis, but local sustainability does not need to start from the destruction of old ways. This is easier in a sense because, in the absence of an acute crisis, the communities are in a position to choose their own priorities. However, when the pressure caused by urgent problems is missing, the motivation to act may be hard to find and sustain. The solution, as applied by a growing number of cities, is to agree together on an ambitious goal, a shared vision that can mobilize the entire community, e.g. to achieve 100% renewable energy provision, commit to sustainable sourcing or to develop new green spaces. Benefiting from clear political commitment, the implementation process is usually well-organized and includes strong participation of relevant stakeholders, with the private sector playing an active role.
Cities that streamline their sustainability processes to reach a common goal are often found among international “good practice” cases. Their ambitions and forward-looking approach, usually supported by good marketing, earn them recognition both regionally and internationally. The image of the “sustainable city” is also an increasingly important asset in the economic development of cities, attracting clean, innovative businesses and research institutions.
2 - Type 2: Civil Society Initiative
The civil society actors, such as community groups, non-governmental and religious organizations or science and research institutions, were among the first to pursue sustainable development activities, also at the local level. The education sector, both formal and informal, played a key role in supporting those activities. Civil society, thanks to its commitment and expertise, plays an important and necessary role in inspiring, complimenting and controlling sustainable development processes initiated by the public and private sector.
Civil society-based sustainability processes have at their core civil society networks, either from the local or the national level, which initiate actions to promote sustainability and raise social awareness. Compared to processes initiated by the public sector or international organizations, they are usually characterized by a higher degree of creativity and willingness to explore new solutions.
The key question when discussing civil society initiatives for local sustainability is are they linked to official policy processes and the activities run by the local government? If the answer is yes, the question becomes how. If run in parallel, they risk becoming “playgrounds”, with no tangible, lasting effect on the community. On the other hand, trying to fit into and influence existing policy processes may be a lengthy and frustrating exercise, especially if there is lack of trust on both sides.
2.1 - Community-driven local sustainability processes
Local networks for sustainable development emerge in communities where the local civil society has a strong commitment to and awareness of sustainable development issues. This represents a great potential to anchor the principles of sustainability in different aspects of local life and in different groups within the local community. The fact that the initiative comes from “within” the community can also make it easier to prevent and resolve potential conflicts, thanks to already existing ties between different actors and groups.
The key relationship here is the one between the emerging network and the local government and it can range from trust and cooperation to competition and even hostility. Without the involvement of local government, community initiatives will usually remain limited in scope and impact, regardless of their innovative potential. Successful cooperation is only possible with mutual trust and shared goals, conditions difficult to achieve if both sides perceive it as more of a power struggle. This is closely related to the question of public participation in local sustainability processes, discussed further in chapter 5.
Some remarkable examples of community-led sustainability initiatives come from the Transition Towns movement that has emerged in 2006, starting from the town of Totnes in the UK, and now spanning well over a thousand communities in 35 countries. The movement focuses on supporting community-led responses to climate change and aims to build resilience and happiness. It should come as no surprise that “building a bridge to local government” features in the list of twelve key ingredients to the Transition Model:
“Whatever the degree of groundswell your Transition Initiative manages to generate, however many practical projects you’ve initiated and however wonderful your Energy Descent Plan is, you will not progress too far unless you have cultivated a positive and productive relationship with your local authority.”5
However, the Transition Towns movement argues that the role of the local government is to support, not drive, the initiative, a condition that sets Transition Initiatives apart from other local sustainability initiatives described in this study.
2.2 - Civil society-driven processes on the national level
In some countries local sustainability processes have been initiated by multi-stakeholder networks established on the national level and driven largely by the civil society representatives. These networks are usually created in response to a lack of activity from the central government or the national municipal association, filling the gap left by the national institutions. If successful, they might act as catalysts, preparing the ground for national government initiative.
The success of such a network depends on whether the partners manage to sustain the initiative in a long-term perspective, particularly in terms of funding, and really root its activities in the local context. For this to happen the involvement of local governments is crucial and therefore networks including local government members have a clear advantage over those that only gather civil society initiatives.
3 - Type 3: Concerted Action
Local government associations and networks, both on national and international level, have long been avid advocates of local sustainability processes. As membership organizations, they fly the flag for local governments’ interests, understand their concerns and enjoy their trust. They support local governments by offering information services, trainings and guidance, as well as by organizing networking and exchange of experiences through regular events. The result of their activities is “concerted action” or, in other words, a voluntary movement of hundreds or thousands of local processes, which support and inspire each other. By participating in this voluntary movement, cities gain an opportunity to learn from others but also to showcase their successes, promoting themselves as frontrunners in the field of sustainable development and stimulating healthy competition among local governments.
3.1 - National local government associations and networks
Previous reports on Local Agenda 21 implementation have praised national LA21 campaigns, particularly those led by national municipal associations, for their effectiveness in mainstreaming local sustainability processes. Thanks to their good understanding of local governments’ needs and capacities, national associations continue to be key actors in mobilizing and coordinating local action. In some countries, e.g. Italy or Sweden, new municipal associations or networks have been created that focus specifically on sustainable development issues.
National municipal associations have been instrumental in promoting local sustainable development in Latin American countries, including Ecuador, Chile and Costa Rica. In Ecuador, the Consorcio de Muncipios Amazónicos y Galápagos (COMAGA, the Municipal Association of the Amazonian Region and Galapagos) offered guidance and training to its members, achieving collective political commitment and involvement of all Amazonian local governments. High political profile of local sustainability in Ecuador was reflected in the 2008 Constitution, one of the few worldwide to include the reference to local sustainability and make it mandatory for all local governments.
The Chilean Municipal Association established a national Local Agenda 21 campaign in 2000, providing not only training and guidance but also small grants to fund demonstration projects, thanks to financial support from international donors. The campaign focused on small cities in rural areas and offered a set of public participation tools to support their strategic planning and local economic development. In 2002 Costa Rica held its first mayoral elections which gave a major impetus to the development of local democracy. The national LA21 campaign, led by the national municipal association, had a strong environmental focus, addressing issues like environmental education or waste and water management, and benefited greatly from close cooperation with the education sector. The support from the national association has continued until now, despite international funding ending. Even though local sustainability is not nationally mandated, like in Ecuador, Costa Rican municipalities continue to strive for sustainable development and have managed to incorporate sustainability in their daily practices. In all three countries LA21 influenced local decision making incorporating public participation as a routine.
Municipal associations, as opposed to national governments, often have the luxury to engage in long-term activities, as their leadership and mandate are less prone to political changes. “Concerted” local sustainability processes create a community spirit among participants, a social capital that helps to overcome everyday difficulties. This community and continuity aspect results not only in greater resilience but also in flexibility of local sustainability processes that can benefit from existing structures at the national and local level, for example, when introducing new topics.
3.2 - International campaigns and networks
The growing number of international networks of local and regional governments that have emerged in the last 20 years – many of them with a focus on sustainable development issues – is a new phenomenon in the history of local policy-making. The traditional structure of national municipal associations, themselves forming regional and international associations, is today complemented with organizations that create direct links between the local and the international level. The existence of these networks has made local governments, their activities and interests much more visible on the international scene.
This has been particularly important in countries with little or no national support for local sustainability processes, allowing local governments to find an alternative framework for cooperation and exchange. For instance, participation of US cities in ICLEI grew in an unprecedented way during the Bush era. Another example can be found in Spain and Italy, where local governments, in the absence of national support, turned to the international level and joined the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign in large numbers. A similar dynamic could be observed in Latin America. Local governments, challenged with an incomplete decentralization process, filled that gap through visionary municipal associations supported by international donors. For the first time a systematic exchange of experiences and South-South decentralized cooperation took place giving a new, wider perspective to local development.
Participation in international networks can be more demanding for local governments than engagement on the national level. First of all, most materials and events are offered in a foreign language, usually English (which is certainly a privilege for English-speaking communities). It requires also more travel, often meaning higher expenses and longer time away from the office. However, as the growing membership of international networks suggests, the benefits justify these potential inconveniences.
By engaging on the international scene, local governments gain direct access to international institutions, such as the European Commission in Europe or various UN processes. Local government representatives appreciate the advocacy role that networks can play, together with the inspiration and constructive criticism coming from those working on similar issues, perhaps in completely different ways and often under very different conditions. This opportunity for exchange can be particularly valuable for those who receive little recognition in their own municipality and rely on an international community of like-minded people for support and renewed motivation. On the other hand, participating in and hosting international events may contribute to raising the profile of sustainable development issues within the local administration. International networks also play an important role as platforms to share new solutions to local challenges and to find partners for collaborative projects on sustainable development.
4 - Type 4: National Policy
In its essence Local Agenda 21 has been a call for action, spurring voluntary engagement beyond the legal duties of local governments. However, with further development of national sustainability policies and growing recognition of the importance of local action comes also a certain level of institutionalization of local sustainability on the national level. To a varying extent depending on the country, supporting local governments in initiating and conducting local sustainability processes has become an important point on the national policy agenda. Indeed, national governments have a whole variety of instruments to initiate and support local sustainability processes and strategies, as well as to create favourable conditions for local action. These range from a clear legal obligation for local governments through provisions such as the adoption of sustainability criteria in sectoral legislations or funding programmes, to the establishment of national campaigns for local sustainability.
A special case of top-down local sustainability processes, steered by national governments, are the recent plans (particularly in Asia) to create new model cities or “eco-cities”. Although at first sight these projects have only little in common with traditional Local Agenda 21 processes, they incorporate sustainability criteria - especially environmental ones - in urban planning in a radical way.
4.1 - National campaigns, mechanisms and legislation
Campaigns to raise awareness and the profile of sustainability issues on the local level initiated by national governments, and support programmes with guidance, training and exchange of experiences can be found across continents. Less frequent are financial incentives through subsidies linked with criteria such as process management quality, public participation, or the obligation to include sustainable development in strategic documents.
Regarding mandatory documents or references to sustainable development, three approaches can be distinguished:
Local governments are obliged to adopt a Local Agenda 21 or local sustainable development strategy, e.g. in Ecuador, where sustainable local development was included as one of the objectives of the 2008 constitution, or in the UK where local governments are required to develop a participatory Sustainable Community Strategy;
Local governments are obliged to develop one or more sectoral documents related to sustainable development, e.g. every French local government of more than 50,000 inhabitants has to adopt and implement a Climate Plan, every Kosovo municipality needs to adopt a Local Environmental Action Plan, as well as to present a Strategic Environmental Assessment of its Municipal Development Plan;
Local governments are obliged to incorporate sustainable development as a cross-cutting issue into its strategic documents, as in the case of South Africa, in which every municipality needs to adopt the Integrated Development Plans, a five-year development planning tool.
However, the problem with this “stick and carrot” methods is often the quality of the documents developed and the extent to which they are rooted in the practices of local government. In order to be successful, incentive-based systems need to be complemented with strong awareness raising and capacity building components. Otherwise, they risk delivering generic, “copy and paste” documents that are quickly filed away and never really implemented. Including sustainable development as a cross-cutting issue, particularly in countries where there is no established sustainable development policy, may result in a little more than a rhetorical exercise, with no real action taking place.
4.2 - Model sustainable cities
In the Northern Hemisphere, with its demographic trends of shrinking and ageing populations, the sustainable cities of the future will be the cities that exist today, only with their structures, functions and fabric adapted to minimal resource use and a changed climate.
The situation in the Global South is very different. According to UN projections, by 2050 almost 70% of world population will live in cities which means that, coupled with expected population growth, the world urban population will grow from 3.5 bln in 2010 to 6.3 bln in 2050, with 95% of this increase occurring in developing countries7. That means that in the next 40 years existing urban capacity needs to be almost doubled. Whether this new urban capacity will adhere to sustainability criteria or not is a decision of fundamental importance for sustainable development worldwide and a choice that will hugely impact our future.
Designing cities from scratch, as is often the case with current so-called eco-cities projects, certainly has its advantages. Planners and engineers are free to design and implement many radical solutions, for example in terms of resource efficiency standards or transport infrastructure, without having to worry about adapting existing systems or going through cumbersome public consultation processes. On the other hand, even the most advanced technologies cannot produce a sustainable city without the involvement of its future inhabitants. It remains to be seen what the impact will be of various technological solutions on quality of life and to what extent people will be willing to follow sustainable consumption patterns.
Existing eco-cities projects, as the name shows, focus on high environmental performance, downplaying other aspects of sustainable urban development. They are often designed to act as a showcase of emerging technologies and promoted as exciting business opportunities rather than exciting places to live in. It will be interesting to watch how these new developments turn from investment projects to cities and what will be the experience of their inhabitants, since it is only when the first inhabitants settle there that the real local sustainability process can begin in earnest. Coming back to the challenge of doubling existing urban capacity within the next 40 years, one has to keep in mind that in order for this challenge to be met profound changes in existing urban development patterns are needed. Eco-cities alone, as long as they remain isolated islands of innovation, will not produce a tangible impact.
5 - Type 5: International Cooperation
For many local governments and communities, local sustainability processes came with the participation in international development cooperation activities. Amongst these, the participation in programmes of national and international organizations for technical cooperation and development has to be distinguished from individual partnerships between cities and municipal associations in the North and South, East and West11. Even though both forms of support for economically weaker regions had existed for much longer than the vision of sustainable development, it was in the last twenty years that the support for local sustainability has been so explicitly incorporated into the portfolio of development cooperation activities.
Local sustainability processes initiated by international cooperation programmes tend to follow a pre-defined common methodology with agreed process criteria, and failure in fulfilling them may endanger the further flow of financial support. This often results in well-prepared and well-managed local processes that deliver remarkable results in a comparatively short time. On the other hand, as soon as (project) funding ends, these processes have to prove that they themselves have been established in a “sustainable” way - which of the structures and procedures introduced can be maintained beyond the lifetime of the donor intervention?
In contrast, processes initiated by partnerships between individual local governments (e.g. in the framework of city twinning) are focused to a much greater extent on mutual learning. Although such processes may be characterized by a high process management quality as well, the focus of the cooperation is more on a long-term partnership, shared experience and mutual exchange, and less on professional management and measurable results. In addition, with both partners being local governments (or local government associations), there is greater understanding of challenges faced, as well as a more equal working relationship, going beyond the usual donor-recipient relation.
In both cases channelling new initiatives through existing, well-established cooperation structures makes it easier to get them off the ground. However, development cooperation activities in the field of sustainable development face similar risks and difficulties as any other development projects. On the recipient side, those are mostly related to weak legal and governance systems and can entail, for example, a lack of institutional and personal capacities, corruption or political pressures. On the donor side, the risks include insufficient knowledge of and respect for local needs, lack of coordination between different donors and short-term engagement.
5.1 - UN and other international actors
In 1997 ICLEI predicted a rapid increase in Local Agenda 21 processes in middle- and low-income countries, pointing to the growing interest of international donors in supporting these processes. Today local sustainability initiatives can be found in the portfolio of almost every international development organization, even if only a few of them still use the name “Local Agenda 21”. This wouldn’t be possible without the involvement of few pioneers, such as UNDP, UN-HABITAT, UNEP but also bilateral donors like Germany, Canada, Belgium, Denmark or the Netherlands, who through their long-term engagement and focus on capacity building managed to plant the seeds of local sustainability in thousands of municipalities worldwide.
However, the funding available for sustainable development at the local level is often channelled through a number of institutions before it reaches local administration. This leads not only to increased costs but also to suboptimal results, as the activities may not be sufficiently rooted in the local context. The 2011 UN-HABITAT report on cities and climate change calls for easing bureaucratic burdens on local access to international support and argues that local actors need direct communication and accountability channels linking them to international donors12. The 2011 ICLEI White Paper “Financing the Resilient City” reiterates this call, proposing a bottom-up, demand-driven approach to investment planning, design and financial sourcing, the three “inversions” of the conventional development assistance approach13.
5.2 - International decentralized cooperation
The last years have brought a growing popularity of decentralized development cooperation programmes and, at the same time, the unique contribution that local governments bring to the development process has been recognized on the international level. In its 2008 communication “Local Communities: Actors for Development”14, the European Commission has stated:
“While the involvement of local authorities in external cooperation and development policy, especially through town twinning, has a long history, the last decade has witnessed a radical change in its nature. Decentralised Cooperation has emerged as a new and important dimension of development cooperation. (…) Local authorities are bringing unique added value to development processes”.
European local governments have access to a number of funding instruments, both on the European and national levels, to finance their cooperation activities. However, decentralized cooperation still represents a very small percentage of national aid. In Spain, one of the European leaders in this regard, it amounts to 15% of the national aid budget15. In France the 2005 Oudin-Santini law allows the municipalities, regions and public authorities responsible for water and sanitation services to spend 1% of their budgets on these services for financing international development projects in these fields16. There are also countries, however, in which local governments may not spend their public money for development cooperation projects.
The cooperation in the framework of decentralized cooperation is not limited to North-South relations. A growing number of South-South partnerships, such as between Johannesburg in South Africa and Lilongwe in Malawi or between eThekwini Municipality (Durban) in South Africa and ALAN in Namibia, highlights the importance of this form of cooperation.
With growing awareness of carbon footprints of products and services, the role of decentralized cooperation, as a way to reduce emissions at the source, is set to increase.
Many of the existing international instruments have the potential to support local sustainability, even if it may require certain adjustments to their current operating mechanisms or simply capacity building for cities. One such instrument is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Under CDM, the developed countries (so called Annex B countries) can meet their emission reduction targets by purchasing certified emissions reductions from developing countries. Despite bureaucratic obstacles related to CDM projects, a number of cities (e.g. in China or India) have used this instrument to finance their sustainability initiatives, particularly in the field of waste. UN-HABITAT has also recently produced a guide for cities from developing countries on how to make use of CDM21. Lessons learnt from CDM experience can be very valuable in designing future financial instruments based on the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle, e.g. in the field of climate adaptation22.
1 “Sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean 20 years on from the Earth Summit: progress, gaps and strategic guidelines. Preliminary version”, LC/L.3346 , United Nations 2011 (www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/eclac.pdf), p.141
3 “Fossil Fuel Free Växjö” 2010 (available at www.vaxjo.se)
4 For more information about Curitiba, see “Curitiba. Orienting Urban Planning to Sustainability”, ICLEI Case Study nr 77, 2002
6 The tool is available at www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Consulter-le-referentiel-en-ligne.html
7 UN World Urbanization Prospects: 2009 Revision (esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm)
8 For a full list of indicators, visit www.tianjinecocity.gov.sg
9 CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita), World Development Indicators 2008
11 However, there is growing number of examples of South-South cooperation
12 “Cities and Climate Change. Global Report on Human Settlements 2011”, UN-HABITAT 2011
13 “Financing the Resilient City. A demand-driven approach to development, disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation”, ICLEI White Paper, ICLEI Global Report 2011
14 “Local Communities: Actors for Development”, COM (2008) 626 final, Brussels 8.10.2008
15 Noferini, A., “Development, decentralized cooperation and multi-level governance: considerations for the current climate”, Observatory for Decentralized Cooperation between European Union and Latin America 2010 (www.observocd.org/libreriapagina.asp?id=614)
16 Smith, J., “Decentralized development cooperation – European perspectives”, PLATFORMA 2011 (www.ccre.org/docs/Platforma_European_perspectives_EN.pdf)
17 Peters, Glen P. et al., „Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008“, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 108 (21), p.8903-08
18 “Barcelona Solidaria. 15 years of international cooperation”, City of Barcelona 2009
19 A database of German municipal partnerships is available at www.rgre.de/datenbank.html, more details: “50 Kommunale Klimapartnerschaften bis 2015. Vorstudie”, Material nr 42, Inwent Servicestelle Kommunen in der einen Welt 2010
20 « Municipalities Overseas. Canadian Municipal Engagement in FCM’s International Programmemes”, FCM 2010
21 “Making Carbon Markets Work in Your City: A Guide for Cities in Developing Countries”, UN-HABITAT 2011
22 For an interesting analysis of CDM potential in relation to local sustainability, see Sippel, M., Michaelowa, A. “Does Global Climate Policy Promote Low-Carbon Cities? Lessons Learnt from the CDM”, MPRA Paper no. 20986, February 2010 (mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20986/1/MPRA_paper_20986.pdf
Published by :
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability
Leopoldring 3, 79098 Freiburg, Germany
In Partnership with:
Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind
United Nations Human Settlements Program UN-HABITAT
To go further
This study would not have been possible without the contributions made by a number of experts from all around the globe who shared their knowledge with the authors in the form of both written and oral answers to a set of guiding questions. We extend our gratitude to the staff of the following organizations and individuals:
ICLEI Offices: Africa Secretariat, European Secretariat Japan Office, Canada Office, Korea Office, Mexico Office, Oceania Secretariat, South Asia Secretariat, Southeast Asia Secretariat, USA Office, World Secretariat.
Regional and Country Offices of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-HABITAT: Arab States Region, Burkina Faso, Central America, China, Indonesia and Pacific Island countries, Latin America and Caribbean Region, Sri Lanka, Western Balkans.
Further: Africa: Johan Nel (North-West University, South Africa), France: Ministry for Sustainable Development, Association 4D, Japan: Katsutaka Shiraishi (Ryukoku University), Hidefumi Imura (Yokohama City University), Korea: Korean Institute Center for Sustainable Development, Latin America: Francisco Alarcon (Finland).
The study was financed by the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind, Lausanne (Switzerland), the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, and Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt DBU. Its publication was supported financially by UN-HABITAT.
To dowload the complete study : local2012.iclei.org/local-sustainability-study/