Roundtable workshop on enabling climate change adaptation and mitigation at the local level

Climate change adaptation and mitigation policies and measures have to be implemented on the local level instead of only top-down, authoritarian approaches. Usually, successful implementation and enforcement measures promoting urban sustainability at the local level includes a focus on people-centred approaches and the creation of wide-ranging stakeholder coalitions. Obviously, this requires a lot of communication. In many cases this is based on trustful interaction between the state, (civil) society and in some case the corporate sector as well. In some cases even, the government even retreats to the role of an enabler only.

How can local action to climate change adaptation and mitigation be enabled and supported in the Vietnamese context? ‘Just Bottom-Up is not Enough!’ Part 2 - the roundtable workshop on July 16 at the University of Architect aimed at continuing the multi-stakeholder dialogue initiated in December 2012 during the final Megacity conference. By bringing together 12 representatives of academia, local government and civil society, the roundtable facilitated discussion about potential opportunities for the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches.

 

Main results of the first workshop in December 2012 was summarised, namely potentials of people-centred approaches and obstacles for their implementation in the context of Vietnam. Theoretical input was given introducing the concept of governance and community-based adaptation. This was followed by input from participants, who reported about best-practice examples from their own working experience. Finally, a roundtable discussion was moderated to discuss ideas on strategies and measures required to effectively enable people-centred approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Some notes from the roundtable workshop

 

Governance

 

Governance is not the same like government and governance without government is possible. Governance is more than good governance.

Good governance (accountability, transparency, efficiency, participatory, egalitarian, better decision-making, rule of law, responsibility, civil society) vs. bad governance (in-transparency, nepotism, corruption, waste of resources, failed states, ‘cause of all evil’).

 

As an empirical phenomenon, governance promotes networks, soft steering, more cooperative, more stakeholders (state just one of many) and less hierarchical approaches. Implication for planning: general shift from technocratic towards more participatory planning approaches in Western countries. In the new planning culture, planning serves as mediation of interests between state and society (planning as communication).

 

Strengths of Bottom-Up approaches

- Bottom-up approaches are very practice-oriented and aim at achieving results in short periods of time. They are based on local realities, local socio-economic and environmental information that may also supplement data gained from research.

 

- Bottom-up approaches involve the local population as main stakeholders and do not only create practical results but also initiate a change of people’s awareness.

 

- Local level projects are based on local and community conditions and preferences and may therefore create tailor-made solutions.

 

- Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) in particular is an effective approach to raise awareness among communities and the local government and to mobilize collective action. CBA supports local adaptation strategies based on local resources and capacities and creates local ownership and supports the dissemination of local knowledge.

 

Weaknesses, Challenges & External Barriers of Bottom-Up approaches

 

- The impacts of bottom-up people-centred approaches are very small in comparison to top-down managed projects. Therefore, they are rarely recognised by authorities, hence, there is lack of official mechanisms, instruments and motivation to support these approaches

 

- As bottom-up approaches are rarely officially recognised or supported, there is lack of funding opportunities for local, small-scale, community-based projects. The instrument of Community Development Funds (CDF) has been introduced and tested in Vietnam, but not all communities have access to this funding instrument.

 

- Bottom-up approaches are dependent on the motivation and willingness of individuals, at the same time it may be hampered by personal interests as well as by corruption.

Recommendations on how to create an enabling environment for bottom-up approaches

- The role of civil society as a whole and of civil society organisations in particular has to be enhanced in order to more active engage in advocacy. An independent civil society as such shall create a political space between the state and the people that enables negotiation and real change from below.

 

- Tools and mechanisms have to be developed that promote (and implement) people-centred approaches in a transparent and structured approach.

 

- Bottom-up approaches need to be enabled through the top-down system and supportive policies. For example, retired government officials may engage in advocacy as they are familiar with the decision-making procedures and hierarchies.

 

- In order to replicate and out-scale successful micro-level projects, innovative ways of disseminating successful approaches and learning need to be developed and tested. Here, peer learning and the dissemination through mass and social media play an important role.

 

‘Theory Brief: Introduction about Governance’ by Dr. Michael Waibel (University of Hamburg)


’Summary of Results of the Workshop ‘Just Bottom-Up is not Enough’ Part 1’ by Ulrike Schinkel (BTU Cottbus)


'Pilot mangrove co-management in Soc Trang' by Pham Thuy Duong, GIZ Soc Trang (We were asked to use the workshop ppt template slides with guiding headlines for a structured approach)

’Community-Based Adaptation in Quy Nhon and Can Tho’ by Mr. Lê Quang Duật (Challenge to Change)


’Community-Based Adaptation in HCMC’ by Ulrike Schinkel (BTU Cottbus)


’Community-Based City Development Strategy’ by Ms. Lê Diệu Ánh (Cities Alliance & ACCA Programme)


’United Nations Human Settlements Programme in Vietnam’ by Ms. Đỗ Minh Huyền (UN-Habitat Vietnam)


’Approach of European Chamber of Commerce’ by Jan Rask Christensen (EuroCham, HCMC)


’Challenges for Urban Development in Vietnam’ by Walter Koditek (GIZ CIM, Vietnam Urban Development Agency)

***

Group photo