Cities at Risk: Building Adaptive Capacities for Managing Climate Change Risks in Asian Coastal Cities (CAR II)

Transcription

1 Summary Report from the Second International Conference on Cities at Risk: Building Adaptive Capacities for Managing Climate Change Risks in Asian Coastal Cities (CAR II) Prepared by the International START Secretariat

2 1. Introduction Asian coastal cities are increasingly vulnerable to flooding disasters resulting from the combined effects of climate change (e.g., sea level rise, intensified storms, and storm surges), land subsidence and rapid urban growth. As a part of the ongoing multi- year START program entitled Cities at Risk (CAR), which aims to reduce risks and vulnerabilities of Asian coastal cities brought on by climate change and urban growth, a series of international conferences are envisaged. The first such conference, CAR I, was held in Bangkok in February 2009 with support from APN, ICSU and Ibaraki University (Japan). Following CAR I, a number of priority follow- on activities were organized to advance conference recommendations 1. These included a Training of Trainers and adaptation visioning exercise in Bangkok, Thailand in June 2009; an international training workshop on Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Urban Development Planning for Asian Coastal Cities also held in Bangkok in August 2010; five- year funding from the Canadian Tri- Councils to expand CAR- related activities in both Asia and Africa; and program support from the US Agency for International Development for city- specific CAR training and communication activities. Throughout the region, active CAR teams continue to design and implement risk and vulnerability assessments and other activities as they strive to better integrate climate change adaptation and urban development in their respective cities. CAR program activities have made important strides in contributing to and advancing preliminary efforts of the international ICSU program on Integrated Research for Disaster Risk (IRDR), 2 and CAR partners were instrumental in supporting establishment of the first IRDR International Centre of Excellence at the Academy of Sciences in Taipei 3. A second international conference on Cities at Risk: Building Adaptive Capacities for Managing Climate Change Risks in Asian Coastal Cities (CAR II) was held April 2011 in Taipei, Taiwan. Sponsored by the IRDR International Centre of Excellence in Taipei and hosted by the Academy of Sciences (Taipei), the conference sought to assess progress of CAR city teams in advancing program related efforts; to consolidate a network of researchers, decision- makers and institutions in the region; and to identify program priorities for the next several years. CAR II was co- organized by START, the East West Center (EWC) and the Coastal Cities at Risk (CCaR) project. This report summarizes work undertaken with regards to CAR II and synthesizes messages and recommendations emerging from conference discussions, including identified knowledge needs and proposed future activities. This report is prepared by the International START Secretariat on behalf of all CAR II organizers and participants. Questions about the report and/or the CAR program can be directed to Clark Seipt at cseipt@start.org. 2. Methodology The CAR II conference was co- convened by the International START Secretariat, the East West Center (EWC) of the University of Hawaii and CCaR. The Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) International Centre of Excellence (ICoE) in Taipei, Taiwan, sponsored the conference. Local conference host was the Academia Sinica, Taipei. 2.1 Development of the workshop program Prior to the conference, a CAR II Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from all co- organizing institutions and IRDR, developed a detailed conference program that included plenary For more information about CAR I and conference recommendations, please visit and download the CAR I Final Report. Please see for more information and to download the IRDR Science Plan. Please see for more information.

3 sessions, parallel paper sessions and break- out participant working groups. Conference sessions were designed to address and catalyze discussion on the following broad themes: Knowledge base for risk characterization and communication Assessing risk and vulnerability in Asian cities Developing urban adaptation strategies Adaptation measures and practices Conference themes that cut across all sessions included capacity building needs for climate change risk reduction and adaptation governance and policy. Participant paper presentations demonstrated research advances stimulated by CAR- related efforts as well as remaining knowledge and capacity building needs. Paper sessions were designed to delegate shared responsibility to researchers as well as practitioners in leading conference discussions. Copies of all conference presentations are available for download on the START website at at- risk. Subsequent to paper presentation sessions, conference participants collectively identified major messages emerging from the week s discussions (see Section 3). Elements of those messages were combined to construct two priority themes, to be investigated by participant working groups: Risk and vulnerability assessment and communication, and Integration of urban planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Incorporation of breakout working groups into the conference program permitted focused exploration of critical questions, relevant to conference themes, by smaller groups of participants. Each working group was tasked with preparing collective insight on the following questions, as they related to the group s theme: 1. What are 3-4 illustrative examples of common challenges/barriers with respect to your group s topic? 2. What are specific priority actions that would serve to improve existing practices in the short term? 3. What new methods, tools and/or partnerships are needed to address and overcome identified challenges? In this regard, what are specific examples of opportunities for research, education and training that would help to move these forward? 4. In what innovative ways can the CAR program, together with its partners, help to support and sustain such actions? CAR II working groups reported their recommendations to the plenary on the last day of the conference. Major recommendations and outcomes of the workshop are documented in Section Selection of conference participants Nearly 70 researchers, graduate students, urban planners and practitioners, disaster management professionals and representatives from government, donor, development and private sector organizations participated in the CAR II conference. Participants were a mix of invited speakers, paper presenters selected via a competitive application process and representatives from partner institutions. Invited speakers were identified by the CAR II Steering Committee, with input from regional subject matter experts, and were tasked with reviewing and catalyzing discussion on the identified paper session themes. A Call for Papers, disseminated widely throughout the region via partners list- serves and websites, invited abstracts from regional scientists and practitioners for papers relevant to the conference themes. Staff at EWC and START reviewed submitted abstracts and selected final participants. Partial or full travel support (including airfare, accommodations and a modest daily subsistence allowance (DSA) while in Taipei) was provided to selected participants.

4 2.3 Management of conference logistics The Academia Sinica, as local conference host, collaborated with the International START Secretariat to manage conference logistics, including all correspondence and arrangements with regards to conference venue, catering and participant accommodations. Conference organizers at START and EWC communicated with participants to guide preparations of presentations. Participant travel, DSA payments and other conference related reimbursements were managed by the International START Secretariat. Members of the CAR II Steering Committee actively participated in conference sessions. 3. Messages from CAR II discussions CAR II participants collectively identified major messages emerging from conference discussions. The messages, described below, became the foundation for conference recommendations with regards to future research and knowledge needs and follow- on activities. A first step in building awareness of adaptation and adaptation options may be changing the perspectives of those who must work together to advance common goals. Urban systems are natural and social. Climate change and climate change adaptation must be integrated with development and development challenges the two cannot operate separately. Indeed, current vulnerabilities and recent disasters or extreme events are an important catalyst for exploring and improving risk management and adaptation in the context of sustainable development. There is also need to harmonize disaster management, climate change adaptation and development so that these traditionally distinct communities and fields are better able to understand each other and act in complement. A stronger relationship between scientific decision- making and incident management, for example, during and immediately after a disaster can facilitate strong recovery. The positive role of science in aiding development, managing risk and reducing vulnerability is a feature of developing country adaptation. That said, we must recognize that science and specialized expertise can inform but will not dictate the adaptation choices that are made. We must rethink our approaches to risk and vulnerability assessment so that they are better designed to capture and operate within the complexity of systems, particularly urban systems. Climate change and/or natural hazards are most often only one of multiple stressors influencing a system. It is imperative to take into account the interplay of these multiple stressors and the potential rippling impacts both physical and socio- economic in nature when considering overall vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the system as a whole, including its people and institutions. This must include investigation of both the direct risks and impacts (e.g., flood risks, flood events, infrastructure damage) as well as intangible and indirect risks and impacts, such as those related to psychological health and risk perceptions. Furthermore, there is need for better understanding of how our changing environment, itself, impacts risks and our options for reducing that risk. This will require integrated approaches to understanding and managing risks, particularly in urban settings where the linkages between social vulnerability and urban development patterns are strong and dynamic. This, in turn, demands stronger linkages between physical/ engineering approaches and social science related approaches to problem solving.

5 There currently exist multiple approaches to defining and measuring risk and vulnerability (e.g., causal, mapping, indicators, etc.). Elements of these approaches, particularly when combined, offer the potential to act in complement and give a fuller picture of context, stressors and options for decision- making. For example, while vulnerability mapping helps prioritize geographical areas, allocations of resources and the like, unfolding a causal process of vulnerability may help provide recommendations for how to reduce risk, exposure, etc. at different points along that process. The integrated nature of these stressors requires integrated approaches to understanding the issues and to preparing for, reducing and responding to risk. This must involve carrying out simple risk and vulnerability assessments as well as systemic assessments that include consideration of cascading risks, both spatially and temporally. Such approaches will support better understanding of the complex processes at play between social vulnerability and urban development. For instance, some change may occur gradually; other change can occur suddenly. What does this mean for a system and do current approaches to understanding risk and vulnerability, with the aim of ultimately informing decision- making, capture this complexity effectively enough? Effective approaches to doing so must be designed, and capacity to carry out those approaches must be built. One must also consider how to effectively incentivize ongoing integration of research and decision- making to inspire social change. There is critical need for useful and accessible policy relevant analysis of research for decision- making. It is imperative that there be improved understanding of the varied expectations for research and data systems as well as the ability of those systems to fulfill the roles they are called to play. This will require improvements in the knowledge and data itself as well as more effective approaches to packaging and communicating that knowledge. Collaborative learning and partnerships are also shown to support research usefulness and usability. First, there is need for better data and better databases. Current databases are insufficient to support understanding of compound risks and disasters. Differences in scale, irregular data maintenance and inconsistency with other relevant information or information sources are common obstacles that inhibit the usability of data that is currently available. Weak historical records that prevent recognition of possible patterns of change may also be resulting in underestimation of risk. Second, useful research must map to or in some way clearly support decision- making needs. Research that is designed, from the beginning, to respond to knowledge needs holds immediate potential to motivate and facilitate its own application. Research and/or data must also be easily accessible and presented in clear and concise ways. Scientific perspectives should be validated with local experiences, when possible. Regardless of the approach selected, research communication efforts must focus on specific end users and go beyond technical components. With specific regards to policy and planning, communication of the costs of adaptation must be improved, including the importance and potential benefits of long- term investment as well as the costs of non- action. Multiple communication tools, techniques and methods may prove useful, depending on context, goals and targeted audiences. Dialogues involving collaborative learning can help resolve different viewpoints and approaches, and fostering multi- stakeholder engagement throughout the research process is critical to strengthening coordination and enhancing resident capacity to advance follow- on activities and initiatives. Sharing knowledge and experiences can help researchers and stakeholders to learn from one another and together link and

6 prioritize considerations for governments and policymakers. Even when governments commit to drafting climate change and disaster related action plans and policies for their countries, those influenced by related risks and vulnerabilities must be actively involved in preparations, planning and implementation. Sustained communication and collaboration are key factors that will enable policy relevant analysis and informed decision- making. Together, we must think about the unthinkable, prepare for the worst and redefine what preparedness really means. Adaptation is a dynamic process of adjustment. If policies, plans and frameworks are not also dynamic this includes ready for as well as responsive to past, current and potential risks and events how can they be expected to be compatible? Monitoring and evaluation of ongoing efforts, with application of lessons learned and related adjustments, where appropriate, is a critical part of such an iterative process. We can learn from our own history and the history of others, but we must also seek to understand unconditional events and plan for new phenomena that may bring unprecedented risks and vulnerabilities. We must prepare ourselves and our communities for the worst- case scenario. Doing so will challenge us to broaden our understanding of what being prepared means, inspire us to look for new ways to solve old problems and fuel the translation of capacities into capabilities and actions. 4. Conference recommendations and outcomes Workshop participants, as a whole, drafted a series of actionable recommendations that were intended to carry forward activities beyond the CAR II conference and beyond the current CAR network. Recommendations were aligned with the two priority themes identified by participants to guide working group discussions: 1) Risk and vulnerability assessment and communication and 2) Integration of urban planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. 4.1 Risk and vulnerability assessment and communication CAR II participants identified the following as major challenges that currently inhibit collective understanding and action with regards to risk and vulnerability assessment and communication efforts in Asian coastal cities: Problems of scale among the various sectors and players that overlap in planning for, managing and responding to urban risks. Different communities of knowledge (e.g., climate science, disaster management professionals, urban planning and government) understand and communicate about issues at different scales, both temporally and spatially. Failure to develop and effectively apply communication strategies, tools and methods for audiences with different social conditions, lifestyles, cultures and the like. Communicating about science with policymakers is different than communicating about science with other scientists. Scientists must craft messages and delivery techniques that serve to communicate the points they wish to convey but also attend to the specific strength, capabilities and interests of targeted audience. Different communication approaches are required for different audiences. Lack of data and weaknesses in data interpretation. There is a need to make strong enough information available to decision- makers that will raise their awareness and understanding but not make them feel hopeless or irrelevant. Providing decision- makers with a respected, single resource that collects and makes available a range of data and a platform for exchanging experiences, lessons and challenges may be

7 useful in this respect; many platforms are currently available and should be assessed to determine if they offer this service. Unreasonable expectations of the physical science community. The earth system is dynamic and uncertain; urban systems exist and operate within this dynamism and uncertainty. Although the capabilities of science to project change and the potential impacts of such change has substantially improved in recent years, including scenarios- based knowledge of disasters and extreme events, it cannot predict events or consequences with 100% accuracy. Communication and partnership between science and user communities that promotes shared understanding of knowledge needs as well as current capabilities for knowledge generation can help close this gap. Noting these challenges, CAR II participants recommended the following priority actions to improve existing practices for risk and vulnerability assessment and communication in the short term: Identify decision- makers knowledge needs and prioritize those needs in regional research initiatives. For example, national governments may need standardized indices for understanding risk and vulnerability; NGOs and civic groups may want something more flexible. Only when research and decision- making communities communicate and collaborate can such needs be better understood and acted upon. Help stakeholders to understand uncertainties. Uncertainty is a very important condition when dealing with risk management. Helping stakeholders to appreciate prevailing uncertainties and to learn how to operate within those uncertainties rather than not acting because of them will promote more informed and effective risk management. Promote appreciation for the complexity of the situations that we are facing. Understanding and operating within uncertainties is only part of the complex thinking that is required to address today s risks and impending threats. Indeed, communities may find themselves facing bigger challenges than they ve ever confronted. These may include, for example, relocation of entire populations exposed to severe risks, reconstitution of elaborate social networks and/or attendant economic, social and health issues. Changing the mindset of decision- makers to move away from simple logic to more systemic and longer- term planning and actions will be critical. This is particularly true of policymaking. Doing so will be an evolving process that must encompass future threats and future systems and include effective ways of bringing together communities of science, policy and practice to enable shared understanding and action. In the longer term, participants recommended the following to address and overcome identified challenges and nurture opportunities for research, education and training: Issue regular statements from CAR city teams. Messages released by CAR city teams about their work in their respective cities could help raise visibility of CAR related efforts and encourage others in the region to connect with that work and/or use it as a resource for their own city- related efforts. Statements could include, for example, updates on progress and achievements with regards to city- related research or assessments, summaries of research results and recommendations, announcements for new initiatives, including education and training activities and/or dissemination of resources and materials. In addition to broader awareness raising, such statement would also serve to support sustained communication and exchange between CAR city teams. Dissemination of the messages could be facilitated by the CAR program and related networks. Organize and facilitate systematic visioning exercises. CAR program partners, together with CAR city teams, are the perfect team to bring together people from

8 different backgrounds, institutions, roles and responsibilities to investigate risk management and adaptation options in their cities. Such exercises must be innovative and specifically targeted to each city and offer substantial potential for enabling collective understanding and improved communication between the parties that participate. Promote dynamic vulnerability mapping. A common approach to standard vulnerability mapping is to assess individual vulnerabilities of a system and then combine those vulnerabilities through a process of principal component analysis. This practice, while useful and informative, is based on the summation of static aspects of the targeted system. There is overwhelming need for more dynamic approaches to understanding systemic vulnerability, particularly when it comes to capturing cascading components of risk, exposure and adaptive capacity over space, time and stakeholder group. CAR II participants also recommended that the CAR program consider supporting and sustaining these and other actions by helping city teams and others in the research community to cultivate better relationships with communicators and experts in behavioral change. Better understanding of behavior will be required for supporting and advancing the dynamic process of adaptation. Communication between various communities of knowledge is what will inspire change. Integrating these types of expertise into future CAR activities must be a priority. In addition, the CAR program should seek to ensure that regional expertise in land subsidence and issues related to vertical displacement of cities is effectively engaged in investigations of risk management, adaptation and development in Asian coastal cities at risk. This stressor, as part of a multi- stressor, dynamic environment, cannot be addressed in isolation. The private sector whether insurance, professional engineering, foundations or others must also be brought to the table, perhaps in innovative ways, as a partner in building the capacity of cities to manage and adapt to climate- related risks. 4.2 Integration of urban development planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation CAR II participants identified the following as major challenges that currently inhibit collective understanding and action with regards to integrating urban development planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation: Ensuring that policy- makers receive highest quality technical information and that all relevant agencies are using the same data. Policy- makers need high quality information that is consistent, valid and reliable and that is conveyed to them in a clear and concise fashion. Having such will enable them to promote public decisions that better reflect community exposure to risks associated with climate change and disasters. Simple communication of the information is not sufficient, however; acting on such knowledge will also require improved understanding and analytical skill on the part of planners and other professionals who advise public officials. Ensuring that the information received by policymakers includes careful analysis of the potential costs of adaptation. This critical analysis must also include the potential costs of not acting to reduce and/or manage risks associated with climate change. Outdated planning and management systems. In some countries and cities across the region, laws and decisions enacted by previous generations of leaders continue to govern existing planning systems, including, for example, conventional master plans for cities and application of spatial management tools such as zoning. Many times, such approaches and regulations are outdated to the point that they are no longer flexible enough to address current issues and threats. Many such systems are also not designed to assess and act on community risks associated with the longer- term

9 time scale of climate change. Indeed, too often the master plans for cities in Asia focus too much on promoting local economic development, do not anticipate long term problems likely to be faced by the community, do not authorize the use of management tools that offer potential to more effectively address climate change impacts and rely too heavily on past assumptions about patterns in social and natural relationships. Existing plans also fail to address systemic or cascading risks in urban environments. Simple risk and vulnerability assessments, which contribute to the current state of knowledge in most Asian coastal cities at risk, do not include and are not focusing on the sorts of compounding risks that can trigger unanticipated waves of impacts across an urban system. There is urgent need to move toward approaches to research and assessment that do capture these aspects of vulnerability. Implementation gaps that result primarily from a failure to ensure that the implementers are involved in the planning process. Some climate change risk management and adaptation strategies may offer the most obvious or promising technical solution but face resistance from those charged with implementing them (e.g., public officials, communities, others). Among the strategies for reducing the gap between those who institute policies and related decisions and those charged with putting those decisions into practice is to ensure that these implementers are involved in the planning and decision process itself. Shared dialogue and sustained collaboration between these groups is imperative if all parties are to understand and agree with how the management problem is defined, the urgency for intervention and the strategy to be taken. Ensuring that the implementers have the technical and fiscal resources required to effectively carry out collective decisions as well as the continuing support of policymakers are also critical factors to enable effective implementation. Inadequate governance systems. The challenges listed above, when combined, are resulting in weak governance systems that repeatedly exhibit inadequate inter- and intra- governmental coordination and collaboration, inability to incentivize compliance with risk reduction strategies and poor analytic and management capacities. Noting these challenges, CAR II participants recommended the following priority actions to improve existing practices for integrating urban development planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in the short term: Create case studies of exemplary planning and management practices. Examples of best practices that have succeeded in effectively addressing key barriers to integrative planning and risk management are scattered across the globe. Compiling a collection of such examples and making them available to policy and decision- makers would support knowledge sharing among people and places. Such a collection should include best practices for risk and vulnerability assessment as well as analyses of the costs of adaptation and the costs of non- action. Cases on alternative governance arrangements and how they have or have not succeeded in supporting implementation of adaptation strategies would also be useful. Develop more effective strategies for engaging vulnerable communities in the planning process. Ensuring consideration of local knowledge and priorities in the design of adaptation strategies is critical. This includes facilitating effective participation of those actors and communities tasked with implementing such plans. Identifying and nurturing informal champions as leaders within such groups is also essential. Failing to do so may result in conflicting understandings of priorities or approaches and potential delays in or resistance to implementation. The incorporation of iterative, participatory consultations into the planning process can enable priority sharing, a sense of inclusivity and community buy- in.

10 Develop scenarios of long- term climate change impacts to use as a basis for engaging with stakeholders. Scenarios that illustrate low, medium and high risk projections for inundation of existing communities in the year 2050, for example, can be used as an illustrative starting point for discussion with potentially affected groups. Such a discussion can also be used to elicit stakeholders identification of related socio- economic impacts and adaptation options. Promote review and revision of building and design codes and land use planning standards based on updated risk and vulnerability assessments. As conditions and experiences within an urban system change over time, existing plans, codes and standards must be periodically evaluated. Revisions, when necessary, must build on knowledge and experiences gained to ensure relevance and reflectiveness. Create phased adaptation plans. Identification of short- term, no regrets adaptation actions that build on existing management programs can be a first step in educating at- risk communities, increasing adaptation effectiveness and catalyzing readiness for longer- term collaborative efforts to comprehensive adaptation strategies. Early adaptation actions are likely to focus primarily on accommodation tools (e.g., expanded coastal setbacks, new designation of hazard zones, more rigorous building standards in high risk zones). Longer- term adaptation options may incorporate strategies that are more costly or controversial and are likely to involve a combination of actions and priorities. Recommended methods, tools and partnerships to overcome challenges related to integrating urban development planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in the longer term included: Develop and implement more effective systems monitoring. Monitoring and evaluation of the design and implementation of policy and practices related to climate risk management must be expanded and improved to ensure that current and emerging climate change threats are being addressed in timely, useful and effective ways. Successful monitoring and evaluation processes also support reflective learning and periodic adjustments to policy and practices, building on lessons learned from both achievements and challenges. Support collaborative research opportunities that bring together researchers and decision- makers from the beginning. Such research should aim to be truly collaborative with shared leadership in design and implementation so that the experience engenders ownership on the part of all parties and a shared commitment to take up final research recommendations. Design and facilitate training and capacity building programs aimed at urban planners. Linking science and practitioner communities via capacity building activities specifically targeted to professionals offers great potential with regards to knowledge exchange and partnership building. Activities could include production of handbooks and facilitation of training modules on key adaptation related concepts and issues that are directly pertinent to planning and decision- making. Other capacity building activities might focus on enhancing specific skills or competencies that would support improved integration of planning and adaptation and could be transferred to other colleagues via follow- on training, to be led by the practitioners themselves. Examples include transfer of technical skills (e.g., templates for developing and using climate change scenarios in local planning processes) and training in the use of conventional and nonconventional communication pathways and tools. CAR II participants also strongly advised that substantial improvements in integrating urban development planning, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation would likely benefit from the leadership of an agency dedicated to taking on this monumental task. Such an institution or

11 agency would take on different forms in different places and contexts but would be mandated with coordinating such integration. Participants acknowledged that this would not be an easy recommendation to fulfill in many places. In Singapore, Hong Kong or other city state, for example, such an arrangement would not be as difficult, even logistically, as it would likely be in bigger states or nations that are subdivided differently. 4.3 Innovative ways for the CAR program to support and advance recommendations Participants agreed that the CAR program is well positioned to motivate and support follow- on activities that advance recommendations emerging from the CAR II conference. The conference itself is one of several activities that contribute to a longer- term, coordinated effort that prioritizes development of urban adaptive capacities and integration of science and policy in managing climate risks in Asia s coastal megacities. In this regard, CAR partners were encouraged to consider conference follow- on actions that included: Nurture and support an active CAR network of planners, policymakers, practitioners and academics. Activities to be carried out by and within such a network could include development and exchange of training and curriculum materials, case studies (like those recommended by CAR II working groups) and innovative ideas with regards to research, education, communication and outreach. The network could be encouraged to link with other existing networks (e.g., Mangroves for the Future, ICLEI, Engineers Canada, the Climate Change Adaptation Knowledge Platform for Asia, regional planners associations) and might even consider organizing learning workshops for both practitioners and academics. The CAR program could serve as network convener, potentially offering a node in the region to manage sustained communication, interaction and relevant activities and logistics. Foster integrative, collaborative research within the region. Knowledge and capacity needs are identified and prioritized in each of the conferences, workshops and training programs that the CAR program facilitates. This insight offers huge potential to inform regional research and program development. CAR partners were strongly advised to continue striving to support research and related capacity building efforts in South and Southeast Asia; research that investigates knowledge gaps and/or more controversial topics was particularly encouraged (e.g., retreat and relocation as adaptation strategies). Disseminate and scale up program recommendations and results at the global scale. Conference participants emphasized that CAR recommendations, research results, achievements and outcomes must be shared more broadly. After each conference or event, emerging messages should be broadcast in ways that clearly communicate results but that also attract attention to the program, its participants and related achievements. CAR II participants encouraged program partners to organize or participate in side events at global conferences like the UNFCCC COP or ICLEI to share such messages; there might also be a role for CAR in new ICSU initiates on Future Earth. Consider program connections to and complementarities with disaster related fields and initiatives like those supported by UNISDR and others. CAR activities often focus on climate change, adaptation and urban development but obvious and necessary complementarities exist between such themes and disaster risk reduction. Connections to the new ICSU program on Integrated Research for Disaster Risk (IRDR) were strongly recommended, particularly because of the newly established IRDR International Centre of Excellence (ICoE) in Taipei and its support for the CAR II conference. Recommendations from the conference should be reported to the ICoE s Advisory Board, with the suggestion that CAR be used as a possible unifying theme for center activities.

12 5. Next steps Conference follow- on activities are underway, and program partners are committed to advancing CAR II recommendations. Enabled by funding from the US Agency for International Development (US- AID) to START, new city- specific CAR activities are being initiated across Southeast Asia. The first of these activities is being piloted in North Coastal Jakarta, Indonesia. Collaborative activities include city- specific research, training and communication opportunities that build on previous CAR experiences and respond to city needs that are being identified by way of locally organized and facilitated science- policy dialogues. Additional activities are expected to begin in at least two more cities in As efforts progress, city teams will come together to explore key insights and lessons emerging from their cities as well as implications of these lessons learned for climate change adaptation efforts in urban area across Asia and elsewhere in the developing world. A new program of action under discussion at the IRDR ICoE in Taipei also offers unique opportunities for CAR related scientists and practitioners. The proposed three- year effort is expected to include bi- annual advanced institutes on themes related to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction; a program for visiting scientists and research fellows that will promote innovative research and teaching related to IRDR issues and challenges; educational activities, including the organization of an international forum to stimulate discussion and action on curriculum development aimed at both tertiary- secondary levels, as well as professionals in public- private sectors; and continued support for the CAR and CCaR programs, including training workshops and conferences. Following the CAR II conference, START and EWC partnered with several other institutions to prepare and submit a proposal to APN for a three- year program of activities to support integration of climate change and climate change adaptation into Asian planning school curriculum. The proposal describes a series of workshops and national training courses that will bring together members of SE Asia scientific, planning and policy communities to examine recent advances in climate change science and understanding as well as lessons learned from ongoing urban climate change risk management and adaptation actions. Participants will be expected to collaboratively identify knowledge and capacity gaps in ASEAN planning curriculum, which will subsequently be addressed via development of national training courses targeted at enhancing the capacity of city planners and related officials to include climate change risk management and adaptation in urban planning. After testing (and periodically refining) the courses in four countries in SE Asia, course modules will be prepared for dissemination and inclusion in ASEAN planning school curriculum. A Regional Sharing Workshop, convened near the end of the project period, will enable exchange of recommendations and lessons learned, support module dissemination efforts and enable collaborative identification of recommendations and priority actions for carrying out a long- term program on developing research and education capacities for integrating climate change adaptation and urban development planning in SE Asia. Throughout the three- years, partners will also establish and nurture a regional network of researchers, planners and other practitioners to encourage cross- regional and cross- city exchange of research, experiences, lessons learned and materials. In addition to these and other activities, nurturing and sustaining the CAR network remains a priority next step following the CAR II conference. In determining how to best to do so, perennial questions related to network purpose and function continue to be examined as well as what is meant by network support. CAR II participants and partners acknowledge that multiple network models exist; determining what model serves the needs of the CAR community most effectively should be a shared goal. Participants indicated that using the network as a means for exchanging information, materials, curriculum and ideas is desired. Enabling such exchange in ways that also increase

13 awareness of and provide updates on priority projects and programs that are relevant to CAR themes would also support identification of potential synergies and entry points for future collaboration. Several CAR participants emphasized that many existing networks don t function well. They challenged themselves, together with other CAR participants and partners, to seriously consider what makes a network work. Possible recommendations for the nearer term included formation of smaller, more informal groups within the larger CAR community that could work together to advance activities of mutually defined and shared interest; design and support of network tasks (e.g., production of hazard and risk maps) that when carried out by members would help sustain interaction, communication and exchange; and/or consideration of membership requirements that might include periodic participation in organized trainings, reporting exercises and other collaborative activities. Linking the CAR network with other existing networks in the region and internationally was also identified as critical for network health. 6. Conclusions CAR II participants and partners agreed that one of the greatest outcomes of the CAR II conference was the sense of family and shared commitment that participation catalyzed. Although much work remains, participants and the partners with whom they work are dedicated to affecting the course of events in their cities. The CAR program must continue to maintain and thrive in its niche that is, generating knowledge and promoting informed action in Asian coastal cities at risk from climate change and other drivers of change. CAR activities hold the potential to help such cities become less vulnerable and more prepared to manage current and future risks and opportunities.