206 ■ CITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
that are “prominent” and debated in public. An example is São Paulo, where
much of the rhetoric is linked to the transportation situation, which attracts
much of the public debate. Th ese two aspects (continuity of the agenda, public
relevance of the topic) seem to be important “strategic” considerations in bring-
ing adaptation action into the mainstream of local development.
With the exception of Cape Town and its clear focus on adaptation with a
dedicated “framework for adaptation to climate change,” the city-level action
cases do not make explicit distinctions between adaptation and mitigation. In
Delhi, there is some indication that a focus on mitigation, motivated by the
opportunities off ered by the Clean Development Mechanism, has thus far pre-
vented a stronger consideration of adaptation measures.
Looking at the type of response, it is useful to diff erentiate between accom-
modating, protecting, or retreating action. Coastal cities facing sea-level rise
and extreme events seem to favor “protective” approaches (Cape Town and
Singapore). With respect to impacts that relate to resource availability and
redistribution, accommodating responses are adopted (Cape Town), whereby
a main instrument is to adjust (minimize) consumption or to seek technologi-
cal solutions. For São Paulo, retreating options in the form of resettlement are
discussed and written into the local adaption plan.
Actors
Our second question explores which actors have taken the lead on climate
change adaptation, how responses are being coordinated (vertically and hori-
zontally), and how public and local community participation is organized.
Across all eight case study cities, the lead responsibility for adaptation lies
with governments. In China, a concerted top-down strategy has been devel-
oped with the establishment of a “regional administration system” to coor-
dinate local responses to climate change. In all other cases, local or regional
responsibility exists independently from national strategies. In cities with exist-
ing local action plans, three principal alternatives have materialized. (1) In
Cape Town and Singapore, the lead responsible actor is the agency concerned
with the environment (Environmental Resource Management section within
the Department of Environmental Aff airs, Development and Planning in Cape
Town, and the National Environment Agency, Ministry of Environment and
Water Resources in Singapore). Th is may correspond to the existence of a
strong environmental sustainable development agenda. (2) In São Paulo, the
lead initiative is more in the political domain of the mayor’s offi ce. Here this
may be due to the strong personal interest and engagement of an individual
leader. (3) In Delhi, the government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi
is mandated to take up action in several core areas defi ned by a national plan.