- While several cities are developing climate action plans, they are based on different criteria.
- A government discussion paper recommends a national framework for creating city climate action plans with local-level flexibility in methodology.
- Experts say that empowering Urban Local Bodies and embedding climate action into master plans are crucial for meaningful mitigation and adaptation efforts.
A summary review of thirteen city climate action plans in India have thrown light on the need for cities to have clearer institutional structures, better financing options, and capacity-building programmes among other strategies to mainstream climate change in urban areas.
While Gorakhpur prepared a city-level climate action plan early on, in 2010, the plan did not propose mitigation measures, assess the potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, or identify vulnerable geographic locations. Pune’s climate action plan, prepared in 2022, also did not identify vulnerable areas. In contrast, Coimbatore, which released its plan the same year, did incorporate this element.
The review of these city plans is part of a discussion paper by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), prepared in collaboration with GIZ, a German development agency and provides insights into cities’ readiness to tackle climate change.
The paper, Pathways for Mainstreaming Urban Climate Actions, also looked into the state of City Climate Action Plans (CCAPs) across India. It highlights that while many cities are now developing CCAPs, their adoption criteria vary. It evaluated 13 CCAPs against 20 criteria, including methodology, identification of major climate risks, specification of vulnerable sectors, institutional mechanisms for supervision and coordination, etc. One key finding is that only eight cities have established institutional structures for implementing and monitoring their CCAPs.
Based on these findings, the paper published in January recommends developing a national framework to standardise the essential CCAP components. At present, several different methodologies are being used by cities to create CCAPs. If there is a national framework, it would ensure that, regardless of the methodology used, all CCAPs include the core elements such as institutions, governance, financing etc. which are necessary for effective climate action. While a common methodology isn’t a solution due to diversity in the cities, a broader common framework could enhance coordination and accountability to achieve common climate goals.
Vibhor Sood, a technical advisor at GIZ and co-author of the discussion paper, explains that the criteria for assessing CCAPs emerged through stakeholder consultations and serve as benchmarks for evaluating existing plans from an urban perspective. “Every city faces unique challenges, so a one-size-fits-all approach to developing CCAPs isn’t feasible. However, certain foundational elements should be universally included,” he says.
Daniel Robinson, a climate and urban expert who has worked with several international organisations, like Asian Development Bank (ADB) in the past, underscores the importance of having a roadmap or CCAP. “A roadmap helps identify gaps, allowing cities to modify governance structures, address financing challenges, and refine procedures. The fact that cities are now creating such documents is a significant step forward,” he notes. Robinson, who was not involved with the paper, agrees with the need for a national-level framework for city-based climate action plans.
The push for city action plans has been gaining momentum since 2021 after the launch of the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat (NMSH 2.0) for 2021-2030, which aims to promote low-carbon urban growth and build climate resilience.
Among its strategies, NMSH 2.0 emphasises the need to prepare and implement CCAPs for million-plus cities. As of December 2024, around 41 cities have either developed or are in the process of creating their CCAPs. NMSH is among eight missions of the National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC), launched in 2008.
Room for improvement at the state level
As a follow-up to the National Action Plan for Climate Change, the State Action Plans for Climate Change (SAPCCs) have been developed at the state level. However, the MoHUA discussion paper underlines that these SAPCCs often fail to address urban priorities.
The report examined eight SAPCCs covering Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu based on eleven criteria. It found that while most SAPCCs focus heavily on sectors like agriculture, forests, and industry, they largely neglect the urban sector.
The report recommends that SAPCCs include a dedicated chapter on urban priorities and necessary actions. Additionally, it suggests that State Climate Cells provide specific recommendations for the urban sector, including a mandate for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to prepare and implement CCAPs.
Robinson points out a significant challenge at the state level: the absence of dedicated climate change departments in many states. Following the national government’s approach, states have rebranded their environment departments as climate change departments. However, these departments traditionally focused on forest lands rather than urban areas. “Now, these departments are expected to lead climate action in cities,” Robinson explains.
He suggests that either these departments should be empowered to handle climate action at both state and city levels or another department should be given the responsibility. Currently, there is a disconnect, with one department holding the authority while another handles implementation – a situation prevalent across states. The report also highlights this by saying that the state climate cells or centres should have human resources with the proper expertise.
The report emphasised the coordination between the anchor organisation for climate change at the state level, which varies from state to state, and other urban development departments. In Himachal Pradesh, the Department of Science and Technology leads SAPCC implementation, while in Gujarat, it is the Climate Change Department.
While all states have several departments or agencies responsible for urban development, like housing and municipal administration, these departments primarily focus on implementing national and state-level urban missions and schemes that contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation. However, the report says these departments do not inherently embed climate change considerations into their core functions.
Decentralising climate action
Cities play an increasing role in implementing climate action. The MoHUA report states, “As the climate crisis intensifies, the role of cities will become even more pivotal, with their actions determining the success of India’s overall climate strategy.”
Chetan Vaidya, an independent urban advisor and former director of the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, and the National Institute of Urban Affairs, underscores the need for decentralised climate action. “While climate change is often treated as a national issue, managed primarily by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, nearly 70% of GHGs emissions originate at the city level. Without local-level interventions, achieving national climate goals will be impossible,” he explains. He has co-authored the MoHUA discussion paper.
Historically, urban planning in India has focused on basic services such as land use, water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, and road infrastructure. Climate concerns were not planned for. However, Vaidya notes that with increasing disasters like floods, heat waves, and extreme weather events, cities need to go beyond disaster response and integrate climate action into urban planning.
Despite some cities preparing CCAPs, most lack the human and financial resources to implement climate initiatives effectively, the MoHUA report highlights. Additionally, existing CCAPs are not integrated with statutory Master Plans or Development Plans, as NMSH 2.0 recommended. This lack of legal backing limits their impact.
The report also discusses the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which established urban local governments as constitutional entities. However, the process of empowering local bodies were not followed properly. While the amendment empowered local bodies with 12 key functions, the state governments were given the responsibility to devolve these powers to ULBs. Vaidya points out that many states have not fully transferred functions, functionaries, and finances to local bodies, weakening their ability to address climate change. “If local governments remain weak, their capacity to tackle climate challenges will also be weak,” he says.
Sood also highlights that only a few states have devolved more than 50% of functions to ULBs. While climate change and air pollution don’t fall under ULBs’ mandate, these issues impact citizens. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of ULBs to take conscious action. “We cannot simply say that air pollution is not our mandate and ignore it,” Sood emphasises. He mentions the National Clean Air Programme as an example, which focuses on providing cities with funds and enabling action at the local level. Similarly, the city governance has to prepare itself to address climate action, too, he adds.
Recently, the Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman emphasised the need for reform in urban governance in her budget speech on February 1. The government would incentivise reform in city governance, municipal services, urban land, and planning, she added.
Read more: Indian cities witness a growing momentum for climate action
Banner image: City life in Jaipur. As of December 2024, around 41 cities have developed or are drafting City Climate Action Plans, as per a government statement. Image by Vyacheslav Argenberg via Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-4.0).
Credits
