266 ■ CITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Middle-Income Nations.” Hundreds of millions of urban dwellers in low- and
middle-income nations are at risk from current and likely future impacts of
climate change. Th e risks, however, are distributed very unevenly because of
diff erences in the magnitude and nature of hazards in diff erent locations; the
quality of housing, infrastructure, and services; measures taken for disaster risk
reduction; the capacity and preparedness of local governments; and the social
and political capital of vulnerable populations. Th e authors emphasize that
vulnerabilities can be overcome by removing the hazards to which people are
exposed, noting that measures taken to address climate change–related risks
can be pro-poor, but many are antipoor and increase poverty. Th ey stress that
pro-poor development has strong synergies with helping the poor adapt to cli-
mate change.
An asset-based framework for both understanding and operationally
addressing the impacts of climate change on poor urban communities is pre-
sented by Moser in “A Framework for Pro-Poor Asset Adaptation to Urban
Climate Change.” Th is framework has two components. First, the asset vulner-
ability of groups most aff ected by climate change–related disasters is appraised
for four interrelated phases: long-term resilience, predisaster damage limi-
tation, immediate postdisaster response, and rebuilding. Second, bottom-
up and top-down strategies for climate change adaptation that individuals,
households, and communities have developed to cope with the four phases are
identifi ed.
In looking at the funding available for local governments to address mitiga-
tion and adaptation to climate change, Paulais and Pigey in their paper “Adap-
tation and Mitigation” fi nd there is a “mismatch between needs and fi nancing
tools.” Existing funding sources are found to be insuffi cient, highly fragmented,
and generally not designed for local government use. Th ey note that an inte-
grated approach to investment in urban areas is required, and they are con-
cerned that carbon fi nance through the Clean Development Mechanism in part
may be substituting for, rather than adding to, traditional offi cial development
assistance. Moreover, though estimation is diffi cult, Paulais and Pigey suggest
that the investment needs for mitigation and adaptation are one to two orders
of magnitude greater than the funds available.
Several diff erent approaches to meet the fi nancial demands of climate
change may be taken. To get more funding to local governments where it is
needed, Paulais and Pigey consider cases with and without national interme-
diation agencies that can support or pool borrowers. To create more leverage
and incentives for local governments, they suggest that climate change and
pure development investment mechanisms be consolidated. Th ey also suggest
that incentives such as hybrid loans, credit enhancement, buy-down loans, and
various tax incentives for the private sector be used. Th e authors also encourage