Abstract
In studies of climate change vulnerability, an important constraint relates to the uncertainty of the climate projections that local governments need to estimate precisely the risks and impacts climate events have on different parts of a city. In addition, the lack of “downscaled”, or local, climate information makes it very difficult to compare how individual communities and households adapt to severe and extreme weather events and, more importantly, what actions local governments can carry out to increase resilience in poor urban areas. Based on a conceptual and operational framework developed in recent years by the authors in collaboration with partners in the global South, this paper illustrates how “bottom-up” community asset planning for climate change adaptation can help to address this gap and be mainstreamed into “top-down” citywide strategic and operational planning. The paper describes the process by which community members and representatives of local government, the private sector and NGOs working in the city of Cartagena, Colombia, set up a dialogue space that enables them to identify, negotiate and agree climate change adaptation solutions that are legally, financially, socially and technically feasible.
I. Introduction
In the last decade, climate change modelling projections have been incorporated into urban planning agendas in order to determine regional and local scale vulnerabilities alongside future global impacts.(1) With their primary objective to influence local policy and planning, the majority of methodologies for such urban vulnerability assessments and climate change adaptation planning consist of a diagnosis of vulnerable areas, groups or types of hazards that impact a city. While some identify vulnerability “hot spots” using climate data scenarios and downscaling methods to the city level,(2) others combine scientific vulnerability mapping with city level policy and institutional mapping in order to assess the capacity of local authorities to deal with projected hazards.(3) Although most vulnerability assessments are based either on potential climate disasters associated with extreme and severe weather or on slower incremental changes with less immediate impacts, nevertheless to date, few appraisals engage directly with urban poor communities, even though such groups usually live in the most hazardous areas of a city and are generally most vulnerable to adverse weather.(4) This means that planners remain largely uninformed about local people’s perspectives concerning the effects of climate variability on their households and communities. In addition, current assessment methodologies are more likely to focus on physical and institutional vulnerability at the local government level rather than consider other local vulnerabilities, or sources of resilience, at household and community level. Given the increasing size of urban poor populations that will be most affected by severe weather climate, it is particularly important to “capture” their perceptions of the impacts of climate change as well as to identify the ways in which their adaptive strategies can be integrated collaboratively into planning procedures with local partners.
This paper illustrates how “bottom-up” community asset planning can help to address this gap, by designing feasible local solutions that can be mainstreamed into “top-down” citywide strategic planning. The paper draws on the experience of implementing participatory diagnostic and planning tools in an informal settlement located in the city of Cartagena, Colombia, and is divided into three sections. The first outlines the conceptual and operational rationale of the Asset Planning for Climate Change Adaptation (APCA) framework; the second section describes the main climate change issues in the city of Cartagena as well as the tools used in the APCA process; and the third section analyzes the results of the asset adaptation planning process and identifies the challenges this climate change planning framework faces.
II. Conceptual and Operational Rationale
The APCA framework builds on previous applied studies on asset accumulation for urban poverty reduction,(5) as well as on studies of the erosion of assets resulting from violence, insecurity and urban poverty in Jamaica(6) and in different cities in Colombia and Guatemala.(7) It also draws on the participatory planning approaches used by the Foundation for the Promotion of Local Development (PRODEL) in Nicaragua for housing improvement and the provision of basic services and infrastructure in mid-size cities for the period 1994–2008,(8) as well as a long tradition of community action planning in different cities of the world.(9) Finally, the framework is the outcome of two applied research projects implemented by the Global Urban Research Centre (GURC), the first supported by the Social Development Department of the World Bank and the second by the Ford Foundation, both of which provided important inputs to the Cartagena asset planning process.
The objective of the World Bank project was to better understand how poor households, small businesses and communities in the cities of Mombasa, Kenya, and Estelí, Nicaragua, were coping with the impacts of climate change, and to identify how policy and institutional systems could best build on local realities to develop pro-poor urban climate change adaptation actions to build resilience. The Ford Foundation-supported project took the methodology to the next stage and developed an operational framework intended to identify how asset planning for climate change adaptation could be mainstreamed into city planning. The project was undertaken in Cartagena, Colombia, during 2011, and then in Pondicherry, India, in 2012 – in this case, with an emphasis on the climate change impacts on health and environmental hazards in slums.(11)
The conceptual and operational approach that underpins the APCA seeks to contribute to identifying the impacts that climate change has in cities, and specifically in urban locations where the poor live. The APCA assumes that people in local communities – despite their urban location – know about weather and environmental hazards, perceive variations in weather patterns and have reasonable knowledge as to how this affects their assets and well-being at household, community and business levels, and that they can identify what needs to be done. The APCA also seeks to integrate assessments of vulnerability and planning for climate change adaptation processes, first at the scale of an urban poor community, then to link such assessments with broader strategic and operational planning at city level. Finally, by developing a series of participatory methods and tools, it seeks to contribute to the debates on the best ways to involve different stakeholders in planning practices, taking into account the uncertainties associated with climate change.(12)
a. The implementation of the APCA
The APCA has different implementation phases, each with a set of participatory tools (Figure 1). The methods summarized in this section were used by GURC and the Universidad Tecnológica de Bolivar (UTB) in the APCA in Cartagena.
Connections between different elements of Asset Planning for Climate Change Adaptation (APCA)
The PCAA identifies the vulnerability of urban poor households, small businesses and communities to climate change, as well as their adaptive capacity and sources of resilience before, during and after the onset of severe and extreme weather events. Using various participatory tools, the PCAA starts directly with weather issues to ascertain how communities list and rank severe weather events. It also identifies what main type of weather events affect specific assets and how different assets are affected by specific weather phenomena. For each of these phases, adaptation strategies are identified along with associated institutions that support or undermine these actions at household, community and small business level. The PCAA methodology is based on purposive sampling from a range of focus groups that are representative of community members by age, gender, ethnicity, economic activities and other social and culturally specific variables.(13)
The RIA identifies relevant national policies, programmes and projects taking place in the country and the city relating to climate change adaptation or indirectly dealing with environmental, basic infrastructure and housing and economic issues. This includes documentation of national and municipal legal frameworks and public and private institutions working nationally, sub-nationally and at city level on climate change adaptation and disaster risk management, as well as summarizing the main city level projects and associated budgetary resources. It also seeks to provide city level historical data on weather variables (mean wind speed, humidity, precipitation amounts, mean temperatures among others), information on hydrodynamic variables (including the rise in rivers and sea levels) for the same period, as well as watershed problems that affect the surroundings of the communities where the asset planning process is being implemented.(14) Finally, the profiles of local poor communities where the PCAA will take place are generated, based mainly on secondary information regarding their socioeconomic characteristics, pre-identification of key actors working in the communities and other environmental conditions.
The workshop builds on the results of the PCAA and the RIA, and usually takes place in the community with the participation of community members and representatives of local government, NGOs, the private sector and other agencies working in the city. To ensure that the results of the workshop are feasible, a thorough process of dialogue and negotiation takes place before the workshop with members of public and private institutions that have resources and decision-making powers. The same dialogue process also takes place with community leaders to ensure the wide participation of different sectors of the community. During the workshop, participants are divided according to themes that have been prioritized during the PCAA by the different focus groups. The outcome is an asset adaptation plan, which is negotiated and agreed among the participants. The prioritized strategies identified later can be transformed into short project profiles.
The mainstreaming process requires close follow-up and monitoring of the agreements reached during the planning workshop. A distinction between the roles that the community and the local authorities and other agencies play is crucial, and the local counterpart who helps implement the PCAA and the RIA can provide this. The mainstream process requires providing technical assistance to the different partners so they have the capacity to transform the ideas and short profiles generated and agreed during the planning workshop into viable projects that are socially, financially and technically feasible. These also need to be approved and incorporated into the operational and strategic plans of different institutions and organizations, especially local governments.
III. The Implementation of the APCA in Cartagena
The APCA process in Cartagena was implemented between January and September 2011. In January, a feasibility mission from GURC visited the city and a roadmap for implementing the APCA was agreed with the local counterpart. The RIA was conducted between February and June 2011, resulting in three background documents: an overview of the socioeconomic conditions of the city and an appraisal of the main policies addressing climate change adaptation and environmental issues in Colombia and in Cartagena; a summary of historical weather and hydrodynamic data for Cartagena for the last 50 years; and a profile of Barrio Policarpa, where the PCAA was to take place.
The PCAA was carried out between 28 June and 9 July and included training the Universidad Tecnológica de Bolivar (UTB) facilitators in participatory tools (Annex 1); also implementation of 22 focus groups in the barrio; and systematization of the findings of the focus groups. These focus group reports, together with the findings of the RIA, served as the backbone for the analysis presented to the Asset Adaptation Planning Workshop that took place on 9 July 2011 in the elementary school located in the barrio. Under GURC guidance, the local counterpart team facilitated the workshop group discussions and plenary meetings in which 51 representatives (23 from the community and 28 from different public and private agencies) prioritized and assessed different solutions according to the following criteria: urgency; costs; technical feasibility; and legal and administrative feasibility (Annex 2). The outcome was an asset adaptation plan that was later mainstreamed by the local counterpart institution and the barrio community leaders in different departments of the Municipality of Cartagena and other private institutions. The following sub-sections present the main findings from the different diagnostic and asset planning tools used during the APCA in Cartagena.
a. Cartagena(15)
Cartagena de Indias is the most important port of Colombia in the Caribbean. Tourism, port activities as well as chemical, oil and plastics industries constitute the main economic activities. In 2006, the District of Cartagena had an overall population of one million, of which 95 per cent lived in the city. Poverty and income inequality have increased significantly and the city is marked by patterns of spatial and ethnic segregation; the urban poor live primarily in the north and southeast of the city, which have the highest proportions of low incomes, low educational levels and informal workers, and the highest unemployment and crime rates.
Over the last 40 years, a gradual and sustained increase in mean temperatures has been documented, which provides important climate science data for the APCA (Figure 2).
Variations in temperature in Cartagena, 1970–2006
Due to its geographical location, Cartagena has experienced significant and frequent flooding caused by extreme rainfall events and sea level rise. An historical analysis of the annual monthly average rain in Cartagena shows a lineal trend between the years 1942 and 1999, with increases of 78 millimetres every 10 years, double that observed in other cities in the Caribbean region. The monthly average values for rains registered in the years 1945, 1962, 1979 and 1986 were significantly high (Figure 3A). Moreover, in 2004 and 2010 there were unprecedented levels of precipitation, which generated flooding in different parts of the city.(16) Finally, in the last 50 years there has been an increase in the sea level on the coast of Cartagena of approximately 22 centimetres (Figure 3B), the result of recurrent and combined weather events caused by the wind, surf and sea storm surges.
Increasing rainfall in Cartagena (historical)
b. Barrio Policarpa
The Policarpa Salavarrieta neighbourhood (known as Barrio Policarpa) is located in the southwest of Cartagena on swampy terrain (due to its proximity to Cartagena Bay) and is part of the Mamonal industrial area (Figure 4A). Policarpa’s topography is relatively flat, with a slight ascending slope that goes from east to west. Two open rainwater drainage canals run in the same direction. The topography in the south of the barrio has been modified by land-filling in the adjacent industrial area, which has diverted the course of the waterways and created a dam.
Map of Barrio Policarpa (4A) and its internal sectors (4B)
The settlement was established in 1975, with the steady arrival of families from rural areas of the Caribbean and Andean regions and other areas of Cartagena. Less than a year after the first land occupation, there were 100 families living on boggy plots of land. According to community leaders, as more people arrived the landowner brought in the police to evict them. However, because of the tenacity of the leaders, this did not happen – “Policarpa” was the name of an important leader and the barrio was named in her honour.(17) Ever since then, they have tried to legalize the neighbourhood but the problem has not been resolved. More than 35 years later, 7,200 people live in the barrio in 972 houses (an average of 7.8 people per house), but only one family has a land title; the rest do not have any legal recognition of their land rights. According to the sequence of land occupation, the barrio today is divided into four sectors: Las Flores, Central, El 13 and El Chino (Figure 4B).
In spite of its proximity to Cartagena’s most important industrial area, more than 70 per cent of the barrio’s labour force works in informal activities. In recent years, water, waste collection, gas, electricity (although the majority have illegal power connections), telephone and internet services have gradually been introduced.
c. Asset vulnerability to severe weather
The barrio is exposed to adverse severe weather events during both the rainy season (winter) and the dry season (summer). The Mamonal area, which includes Policarpa, is affected by rainfall in the neighbouring Municipality of Turbaco because the rain there creates runoffs that run through this area. This means that the barrio can be affected by rain falling in neighbouring Turbaco even when it is not raining in Cartagena Bay. The open drainage canals that cross the barrio drain into the bay, where the rising sea level acts as a plug in the estuary, preventing rainwater runoff and thus increasing the intensity and severity of the floods.
The PCCA identified the most important weather events affecting the barrio based on the experiences and historical memories of their citizens (Table 1). Rain and flooding were recalled as the main events affecting their assets (about 41 per cent), but also heat (29.4 per cent) as well as a variety of environmental problems associated with wind (including, for example, dust and bad odours) which together made up 24.4 per cent.
Weather phenomena affecting Barrio Policarpa
SOURCE: Based on 22 focus group reports, Barrio Policarpa.
The poor condition of the roads and streets meant that rain caused major transport problems, while the lack of adequate drainage infrastructure caused floods and streets to be covered with mud. Bad odours and wind were also identified as factors affecting small businesses, as well as the impacts caused, which included humidity and increased mud, oil and grease on the streets.(18) A causal flow diagram created by participants in a focus group of women from the Central and Las Flores sectors shows the effects of rain on different assets, including septic tanks, electricity and health, as well as on the streets and houses (Figure 5). Although the direction of some of the arrows in Figure 5 might not seem logical, these represent the perceptions of the focus group members who drew the causal flow diagram.
Causal flow diagram of vulnerabilities produced by rain, Barrio Policarpa, Cartagena
d. Asset adaptation strategies
The PCAA used matrices to identify adaptation strategies implemented by households, small businesses and the community before, during and after severe weather events to protect and rebuild their assets. Causal flow diagrams highlighted the links between the impacts of severe weather and asset adaptation strategies. Listing and ranking of proposed solutions within focus groups facilitated the identification of more concrete solutions that went beyond general strategies. One focus group, for instance, identified specific strategies to protect community nursery houses (hogares comunitarios) used for child care in the barrio (Table 2).
Listing and prioritization of solutions to impacts on community nursery houses caused by rain
SOURCE: Focus group of eight community mothers aged between 30 and 48 from different sectors, 4 July 2011.
Finally, the PCAA listed those institutions with a presence in the barrio, identifying those that supported the community to build resilience or responded to severe weather events. Institutional maps and matrices were used for this purpose. Interestingly, a significant number of organizations worked in the community, with a total of 27 identified. More than 50 per cent highlighted the company Syngenta Agro S.A. (which borders the barrio), the two Policarpa schools, the Municipality of Cartagena and the Mamonal Foundation (a social foundation funded by a private company) as those most relevant. About 30 per cent recognized 20 other organizations, such as the police and the armed forces, the Red Cross, various official district and national entities and private companies; these, as well as helping during the occurrence of extreme weather, carry out programmes that support training in small business for the population. The third group of institutions are those based in the settlement, including the Committee of Leaders, Fundación Planeta y Vida and the Junta de Acción Comunal (JAC), the last of which was not considered particularly important by community members.
e. Asset Adaptation Planning Workshop (APW) in Policarpa
During preparations for the planning workshop, members of the local counterpart team and GURC visited different public and private institutions previously identified as important during the RIA and the PCAA.(19) Some were working on climate change adaptation, others on environmental issues, while still others supported different poverty reduction initiatives in the Mamonal industrial area, including Barrio Policarpa. In these meetings, the researchers described the PCAA participatory process in the community as well as the conceptual and operational rationale that would guide the workshop.
During the meetings, representatives were asked if their organization would be interested in supporting the asset adaptation planning process in Barrio Policarpa and if so, what specific policies, programmes, projects and resources could be allocated to the process (see Annex 3 for a summary of these consultations). They were also asked to identify any legal, technical, financial and administrative constraints facing them that could impede or interfere with their ability to support this climate change adaptation process. These meetings clarified that the lack of land regularization and the risk of recurrent flooding in the barrio were the main factors that could constrain them from contributing to the process. Given the sensitivity of the land regularization issue, assurances were given that the workshop was not intended to put public officials or private sector representatives “against the wall” in terms of public opinion scrutiny. The consultations ended with representatives being invited to participate in the planning workshop and asked to identify how many representatives from their organization they could send.
The local counterpart focus group facilitators also had discussions with community leaders, in order to identify barrio representatives beyond those in the 22 focus groups who could participate in the workshop. Selection criteria included the following: a balance between women and men and between different age groups; participants from the four different sectors of the barrio as well as from small businesses; and finally, representatives of different community organizations. The Asset Adaptation Planning Workshop took place on 9 July 2011. There were 51 participants (not including GURC and local facilitators), of which 23 represented the barrio and 28 came from different public and private organizations.
Participants were divided into groups, with different stakeholders equally represented in each. Each group addressed one of five themes identified as critical by the focus groups during the PCAA analysis:
housing improvements for families living near the open drainage canals and in other places;
small businesses (both those located in the barrio and motorcycle taxis);
health (especially respiratory diseases and diarrhoea, and pests such as mosquitoes and rats);
infrastructure (including open drainage, streets, gutters and kerbs); and
community facilities and services (including sport facilities, community centres and illegal electricity connections).
In each group, facilitators introduced the analyzed PCAA results relevant to the group’s theme. With this input, each group discussed possible solutions to the main problems identified. They used a matrix to do this, with participants each ranking and prioritizing solutions.
The prioritized solutions were then analyzed and weighted according to four criteria: urgency (which solution was the most urgent of all); cost (which solution was the least expensive of all); technical feasibility (which solution was technically most feasible in terms of implementation); and legal and administrative feasibility (which solutions did not require complicated legal changes and administrative decisions).(20) For example, the Housing Group listed, ranked and prioritized different solutions (Table 3). They then decided to weight and prioritize the four solutions with the highest votes according to the predefined criteria. As Table 4 shows, the topographical and pluviometric survey came first in spite of not being priority one; dredging and widening of drainage canals came second; improvements to the community nursery houses third; and housing improvements fourth.
Listing and ranking of solutions to housing vulnerability, Barrio Policarpa
NOTE: (1)This programme, managed by the Housing Department of the District of Cartagena, provides building materials for the improvement of floors, roofs and bathrooms, but not walls.
SOURCE: Housing Group, Asset Planning Workshop, Barrio Policarpa, 9 July 2011.
Weighting and ranking of some of the proposed housing solutions, (1) Barrio Policarpa
NOTE: (1)Weighting grading – urgency: 3 = more urgent / 1 = less urgent; cost: 3 = less expensive / 1 = more expensive; technical feasibility: 3 = more feasible / 1 = less feasible; legal and administrative feasibility: 3 = more feasible / 1 = less feasible.
SOURCE: AWP Housing Group, representatives from the neighbourhood and from public and private institutions, 9 July 2011.
f. The asset adaptation plan
Once each group had identified and prioritized solutions, these were presented in a plenary session so that all participants could share their most important solutions. Participants then returned to their groups and started to build an asset adaptation plan, which specifically identified what needed to be done to start implementing the prioritized solution, when each activity should take place, and who should be responsible for it (with emphasis on the actions the community and the Municipality of the District of Cartagena would have to undertake). Again, the plan for housing adaptation developed by the Housing Group provides an interesting example (Table 5). A similar plan was elaborated by each of the other four groups, and all were presented in turn to the plenary. The first two priorities of each group’s asset plan were then merged into a plan for the entire barrio, and this asset plan became the starting point for negotiations with the Municipality of the District of Cartagena as well as other private institutions and NGOs.
Action plan matrix on housing vulnerability to weather, Barrio Policarpa, 9 July 2011
SOURCE: Based on Moser, C, A Stein and A Acosta (2011), “Urban asset planning in cities of the South. Sourcebook: conceptual, methodological and operative framework for participatory asset appraisal and asset planning workshop. Examples from Cartagena”, Draft Working Paper, Global Urban Research Centre, University of Manchester, pages 33–34.
During the RIA, the local authorities had clarified publicly that they were not permitted to invest public resources in the barrio because of its location in a high-risk area subject to recurrent flooding. Therefore, the barrio could not be included in the District of Cartagena’s operative and investment plans despite the fact that the majority of people had lived there for more than 30 years, during which they had improved their houses and infrastructure. Despite these constraints, the Asset Adaptation Planning Workshop showed that there were a number of potential project solutions that could be undertaken without having to approve the process of land regularization and titling. These included environmental health campaigns; improvement of infrastructure and basic services; housing improvements; and microcredit for economic activities. In one AWP group, the private electricity company insisted that all it required was for the municipality to categorize Policarpa as sub normalidad (a Colombian planning concept that defines informal status in terms of land tenure, allowing for the recognition of the rights of occupancy, although not necessarily of land titling) for it to start investing resources to ensure house connections to the main power lines. The Universidad Tecnológica de Bolivar and the community leaders followed up on these agreements in September and October 2011.
IV. Lessons from the Asset Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in Cartagena
The APCA in Cartagena provides important lessons and highlights future challenges that the process faces. First, it shows that climate change can be used as an entry point for planning for the upgrading of marginal, vulnerable urban poor settlements in cities of the global South. By identifying the impacts of climate change both in the city more generally and in locations where the poor live, the APCA process seeks to identify whether the increasing intensity and frequency of severe and extreme weather events exacerbate existing housing, infrastructure and other problems, or whether it creates specific new problems and conditions that did not exist previously. This demonstrates to decision makers and planners that climate change adaptation should not be seen as an additional burden but, rather, as part of a process of transformation that addresses some of the roots of vulnerability(21) and deals with core development and urban poverty deficits faced by poor households and communities.(22)
Second, the APCA succeeds in challenging conceptions of urban poverty that reproduce images of the poor as destitute, lacking knowledge, resources and capabilities, and therefore unable to confront the challenges posed by severe and extreme weather.(23) In contrast, it clearly shows that the urban poor know about weather and have reasonable knowledge of how extreme and severe weather events affect their assets and well-being at the household, community and business levels.
Third, the APCA process identifies vulnerability not only as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity but also, more importantly, it identifies what people are already doing to cope and adapt their assets in response to the ongoing climate extremes. In this sense, the APCA recognizes that the urban poor are not passive vulnerable victims of adverse climate change; they are themselves already actively involved in “autonomous adaptation” measures that, if strengthened by investment and technical assistance from national and local institutions, can allow them to build long-term resilience. The participatory diagnostic and planning tools used in Policarpa demonstrate the scale and size of resources that households, small businesses and the community are already investing to address climate-related impacts and, more importantly, that the solutions required for strengthening their asset adaptation strategies do not require huge resource investments.
Fourth, since the APCA is not based on the multiple, limitless problems and needs manifest in urban poor communities, but is grounded in the specific strategies that they are already implementing to adapt their assets, there are very real possibilities of finding points of agreement between the urban poor and local government – despite legal and technical constraints that may prevent public authorities from investing in this type of settlement. This is especially true in the context of an informal settlement like Policarpa. On the one hand, it lacks secure land tenure and is located in high-risk areas prone to flooding, which has impeded the investment of fiscal resources by Cartagena’s municipality for the last decades. On the other hand, it occupies valuable land coveted by local and transnational industry. The adaptation strategies that the urban poor develop allow them, as Sen suggests, to negotiate and even confront the institutions that govern the control and use of their assets.(24)
Fifth, the APCA framework seeks to build capacities in local institutions so that they can mainstream asset adaptation planning into their strategic and routine operational planning processes, and in this way to scale up their programmes. It identifies what other initiatives need to be developed by local authorities, the private sector and NGOs in order to support the adaptation strategies that the urban poor are already implementing; also who should do it and what partnerships are required. Accordingly, the methods used are “quick, dirty and cheap”, in order to have agreed results rapidly in concrete communities without having to invest huge amounts of financial and technical resources in complex diagnostic climate change assessments at the city level, which require more time to be developed.
Finally, the APCA is a learning opportunity for different stakeholders. The main challenge is to ensure that it is mainstreamed into the regular planning routines of local authorities. To achieve this, the asset adaptation plan needs to be translated into tangible results. This requires the design and setting up of an adaptation investment fund that can show very quickly that the results from the APCA can be translated into concrete projects approved by local authorities and then implemented by different actors, including the community.
Footnotes
Appendix
List of public and private institutions with whom Global Urban Research Centre (GURC) and Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar (UTB) had a dialogue before the Asset Planning Workshop, and possible areas of support to Barrio Policarpa
| Institution | Possible areas of work in support |
|---|---|
| Argos | • schools • sidewalks, kerbs and gutters |
| Reficar | • healthy homes • income generation (including business creation) |
| Actuar por Bolívar | • microcredits for household improvements • microcredits for small enterprises |
| Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar | • Excelencia y Talento Caribe programme (Caribbean Talent and Excellence) • student internships (advice for community projects and individuals) |
| Establecimiento Público Ambiental (EPA) | • reforestation • contamination control |
| Fundación Mamonal | • formal education • training of community leaders |
| Cemprende | • technical assistance for enterprises • employability |
| District Planning Secretariat | • bank of projects • partial plan (socialization of studies and final formulation) |
| Infrastructure Secretariat | • cleaning of canals |
| Syngenta | • health days • training on risk • assisting community projects • fumigation and pest control |
| Corvivienda (Housing Department) | • technical assistance for household improvement • advice for housing associations |
| Surtigás | • microcredits for housing improvements • microcredits for the acquisition of assets |
SOURCE: Global Urban Research Centre (GURC) and Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar (UTB) (2011), “Perfil de la comunidad y planificación de activos; proyecto piloto en el Barrio Policarpa”, internal document, GURC and AUPO–UTB, Cartagena de Indias.
An earlier draft version of this paper was presented at the International Conference on Living in Low-income Urban Settlements in an Era of Climate Change: Processes, Practices, Policies and Politics, organized by the Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI), September 2013, University of Manchester.
1.
Blanco, H and M Alberti (2009), “Chapter 2: Building capacity to adapt to climate change through planning”, Progress in Planning Vol 71, Issue 4, pages 158–169; also IPCC (2012), “Summary for policy makers”, in C B Field, V Barros, T F Stocker, D Qin, D J Dokken, K L Ebi, M D Mastrandrea, K J Mach, G-K Plattner, S K Allen, M Tignor and P M Midgley (editors), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 582 pages, available at 
.
2.
World Bank (2011), Guide to Climate Change Adaptation in Cities, World Bank, Washington DC, 100 pages; also ICLEI (2007), Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional and State Governments, accessed 24 March 2010 at .
3.
Cavan, G and R Kingston (2012), “Development of a climate change risk and vulnerability assessment tool for urban areas”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment Vol 3, Issue 3, pages 253–269.
4.
Bicknell, J, D Dodman and D Satterthwaite (editors) (2009), Adapting Cities to Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges, Earthscan, London, and Sterling VA, 397 pages.
5.
Moser, C (2009), Ordinary Families, Extraordinary Lives: Assets and Poverty Reduction in Guayaquil 1978–2004, Brookings Institution, Washington DC, 360 pages.
6.
Moser, C and J Holland (1997), “Urban poverty and violence in Jamaica”, Viewpoints, World Bank Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Washington DC, 60 pages.
7.
Moser, C and C McIlwaine (1999), “Participatory urban appraisal and its application for research on violence”, Environment and Urbanization Vol 11, No 2, pages 203–226.
8.
Stein, A (2010), “Urban poverty, social exclusion and social housing finance. The case of PRODEL in Nicaragua”, Housing Development and Management PhD Thesis No 7, Lund University, Sweden, 264 pages.
9.
Hamdi, N (2004), Small Change: About the Art of Practice and the Limits of Planning in Cities, Earthscan, London, 180 pages; also Hamdi, N and R Goethert (1997), Action Planning for Cities: A Guide to Community Practice, Wiley, Chichester, 264 pages.
10.
Moser, C, A Norton, A Stein and S Georgieva (2010), Pro-poor Adaptation to Climate Change in Urban Centres: Case Studies of Vulnerability and Resilience in Kenya and Nicaragua, Report No 54947, World Bank, Washington DC, 84 pages. The Mombasa study was conducted by Caroline Moser in collaboration with Eco Build Africa Trust, four Mombasa community-based organizations (Licodep, Alishe Trust, CODETI and CRF) and a team of local researchers. In Estelí, Alfredo Stein collaborated with NITLAPAN, Central American University and a research team from FAREM, Autonomous University of Nicaragua, together with the Municipality of Estelí and PRODEL.
11.
In Cartagena, Moser and Stein collaborated with Alberto Abello and his team from the Universidad Tecnológica de Bolivar, with training support from Angelica Acosta. In Pondicherry the collaborating counterpart was the French Institute of Pondicherry. In both studies, Elizabeth McKeon from the Ford Foundation provided important guidance.
13.
Moser, C and A Stein (2011), “Implementing urban participatory climate change adaptation appraisals: a methodological guideline”, Environment and Urbanization Vol 23, No 2, pages 463–486.
14.
See reference 10.
15.
16.
Centro de Investigaciones Oceanográficas e Hidrográficas del Caribe (CIOH) (2011), “Boletín meteomarino mensual del Caribe Colombiano”, accessed July 2011 at .
17.
Information obtained from the timeline tool applied to the focus group of members of Fundación Planeta y Vida, 4 July 2011, and the matrix on general data applied to the focus group of community leaders, 2 July 2011.
18.
Focus group of restaurant owners in the Central sector.
19.
In the Municipality of Cartagena, meetings were held with representatives of the Secretariats of planning, the environment, housing, infrastructure, social investment, community participation and development, and members of Sector 3 Cartagena. Private institutions visited were Fundación Mamonal, Reficar (oil refinery), Argos (cement plant), Syngenta and Electricaribe (electricity). NGOs included Cemprende (promotion of small businesses) and Actuar por Bolivar (microfinance institution).
20.
21.
Pelling, M (2010), Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation, Routledge, London, 224 pages.
23.
Moser, C and D Satterthwaite (2008), “Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change in the urban centres of low- and middle-income countries”, Climate Change and Cities, Discussion Paper 3, IIED, London, 45 pages.
24.
Sen, A (1997), “Editorial: Human capital and human capability”, World Development Vol 25, No 12, pages 1959–1961.