[MUSIC] Welcome back, do you remember the three main approaches to planning for climate change in cities? These are ad hoc approaches, stand-alone strategic plans, and mainstreaming. All this can contribute to building climate resilience in cities. Let's now look at these three approaches in more details. Ad hoc approaches mainly focus on changing and technical specifications of buildings, infrastructure or the build environment. For instance, ad hoc approaches include raising the elevation of buildings and houses. Utilizing larger sewer pipes to manage expected flood waters and upgrading of public infrastructure such as roads and bridges to withstand water level rise, and storm surges. These do not use a full planning process, but instead address one specific opportunity at a time, and goes directly to implementation. Climate remains the main goal, but it is addressed bit by bit as the opportunity arises. Ad hoc approaches is normally a reactive type of climate adaptation. This can be very effective and many cities prefer to approach climate change on a case by case basis. Let me explain the advantages and disadvantages of ad hoc approaches. First of all, they're quicker to undertake and can be targeted very tightly to the exact problem or opportunity that needs to be addressed. As a result only the most affected departments or organizations need to be involved which can also speed the issue along. For example, upgrading of public infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, sea walls, or dykes to withstand water-level rise may include the Department of Public Infrastructure, which has the mandate and resources to do so. The main drawback is that it is difficult to comprehensively address issues so that there may be interconnections between policies and conditions that get missed. In coastal areas, building sea walls or dykes may reduce flood risk or erosion, but only up to a certain extent. It also does not take into account a comprehensive approach to coastal management. To illustrate, coast lines are naturally dynamic systems. Sea walls or dykes are hard physical infrastructure that permanently fixes the location of the coastline and prevents natural coastal processes from occurring. Since ad hoc approaches rarely use public participation, there also may be less buy in by the public who did not have the chance to be involved in a full strategic plan. The second approach, are stand-alone strategic plans which result from a planning process in which multiple collaborators develop a specific plan to address mitigation and or adaptation. The comprehensive nature of the process allows consideration of the consequences of climate changes across many systems. For example, a strategic climate mitigation action plan that aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require involvement of different sectors, such as energy, transport, housing and land use. Strategic plans can also help to identify where policies will support each other, providing co-benefits and where they may conflict with other local policy objectives. Strategic mitigation plans, for instance, that provide public transit and promote opportunities for walking and cycling could consider co-benefits, such as reduction of traffic congestion, transport cost, and improvement of environmental condition and public health. The best of the strategic stand-alone climate action plans provide a clear path for implementation with selection of specific actions, responsible stakeholders who are going to implement these actions, along with implementation time tables of these actions. Strategic plans tend to be developed when there is access to secure funding, the opportunity to develop a new institutional structure, and strong political support for climate actions. Because they address climate issues comprehensively, they can assist in exploring the interrelationships across policies, such as on the sectors of land use and transportation and between policy goals, such as adaptation and mitigation. In this way, it is easier to discover where policies conflict and how climate actions fit in the big picture. The process can also have extensive stakeholders' engagement which may create a stronger participation for the plan to be implemented. For strategic stand-alone plans, advantages include the opportunity to change the planning approach currently used by cities, allowing for plans to become more comprehensive. Other advantages include the plans visibility which may attract funding and also an improvement in co-ordination which would reduce tradeoffs in and between policies. However, stand-alone plans are not always effective. There may be difficulties linking the plan to existing planning frameworks, including issues with where to anchor the plan and how to fund it. Additionally, as the plan is stand alone, it may just end up as another silo, or even considered as unimportant, and therefore sidelined. The last approach is mainstreaming. The method has been described as a process of considering climate risk to development plans and projects and of adjusting plans and project activities to address these risks. The assumption is that the plan or project has a goal related to poverty reduction, livelihood security, or improved well-being for target populations. And that the sustainability and impact of the initiative can be increased by integrating climate change. Compared to the other approaches in mainstreaming, climate is one of many factors to be considered. In the sectors of land use and infrastructure, an example of mainstreaming adaptation measures will be to review and revise existing land use plan, legislation, regulations, and standards to reflect climate change risks and variability. Specific adaptation measures include adoption and enforcement of housing building codes, and ensuring that public infrastructure are built according to standards, will remain functional according to it's projected timeline, and that risks related to natural hazards are avoided. The main idea behind mainstreaming is that we apply a climate lens investigating current policies for the extent to which a measure might be affected by climate change. To which extent this impacts are addressed in existing planning, and to which further adaptation is required to address future climate challenges. Almost any existing plan or policy for a city can be looked at through a climate lens to see if it can better address climate change aspects. Mainstreaming can easily fit into set planning cycles, budgets and hierarchies, as this can take advantage of ongoing policies, strategies and actions. There are also clear responsibilities to implement these projects, so they are institutionally anchored. Additionally, as mentioned there are many opportunities to include mainstreaming into existing plans and policies whether this may be municipal, secretarial or master plans. Mainstreaming however does not come with its disadvantages. It does not necessarily lend itself for a multisector or coordination and existing planning frameworks may not allow for these additions due to misalignments with investment plans and budgeting. Also, the standard long-planning cycles may not be conducive to mainstreaming, and climate change issues may be overshadowed by other important issues within the plans. As an overview, it is more efficient to move towards mainstreaming climate change into policies and actions. This builds it into daily practice rather than requiring reference to yet another plan. In reality however, it may be appropriate and helpful to start by preparing a stand-alone strategic plan that outlines key climate projections, vulnerability analysis, and overarching practices. These then can provide the basis for mainstreaming into other plans using a shared vision and focus. As a result, we encourage viewing these supportive approaches rather than replacements for each other. When considering the three approaches in general, ad hoc approaches may be appropriate where the other options are difficult to get started and can provide experience in implementing a climate lens on a particular issue. But by their nature, ad hoc approaches are limited in their effectiveness, whereas strategic and mainstreaming approaches provide more comprehensive plans for climate mitigation and adaptation. As you can see, there are many aspects to consider when we choose one of the three planning approaches, all with their own advantages and disadvantages. For each city, local specific plans are required to ensure climate vulnerabilities and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced while improving environmental, social, and economic systems. Stay tuned for the next video and learn more about the steps of planning for climate change in cities. [MUSIC]