Back to stage

Financing climate adaptation and mitigation; interdependency as a rule. The case of the energy transition

3 speakers

ASK TO JOIN and interact live with the speakers on Zoom!
Restoring streams running through a city is a measure to adapt to climate change. This measure has interesting co-benefits, especially better livability. The other way around climate change adaptation itself often is the co-benefit of a measure aimed at something else, think of nature inclusive urban agriculture. Although climate change adaptation is almost unthinkable without co-benefits, this is not how finance of this adaptation works. That is problematic in two ways: chances to profit from co-benefits are missed, and co-benefits are perceived as risks.
From a fund to enhance livability a city government can add money to empower a project to restore streams, funded with money to adapt to climate change. Simple as this may sound, this is often not how cities work. Rules to spend money on livability can prevent the city to profit from this chance to spend it with good effect on livability.Private finance for e.g. agriculture can go to nature inclusive urban agriculture when the yields promise to be profitable. If this agriculture is beneficial for climate change adaptation in the city, than a project might get extra funding for that. However, from the perspective of funding the agriculture, this can be perceived as a risk. This risk can block the extra funding, thus prohibiting the chance to have effect on climate change adaptation.Working with co-benefits gives an interesting chance to spend money with greater effect. The workshop looks at problems that go with financing co-benefits.