C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group

Action Selection
and Prioritisation
(ASAP) Process
Case Studies
Supported by:
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2

LAGOS 4

DURBAN 8

MEDELLÍN 10

2
INTRODUCTION
This document presents a series of case
studies developed as part of the C40 Action
Selection and Prioritisation (ASAP) Process.
The purpose of the case studies is to
promote learning among C40 cities with
examples of action selection and
prioritisation processes and key takeaways
from other cities. The case studies
summarized here are the result of a series
of interviews with C40 City Advisors and/or
key city staff, as well as a review of
supporting materials provided by the case
study cities. In most instances, these case
studies describe prioritisation processes
that were performed prior to development of
the C40 Action Selection and Prioritisation
(ASAP) Tool Version 1 and Process Guide.
Therefore, there are differences between
the processes described here and the
recommendations outlined in the Process
Guide.

3
LAGOS
Lagos leveraged stakeholder expertise to
rate and prioritise actions based on a
qualitative multi-criteria analysis (MCA).
After identifying a list of potential actions
from existing plans/policies, a day-long
workshop was held for each sector (waste,
transportation, and building energy) where
relevant stakeholders from the City, NGOs,
private sector, and academia discussed and
rated actions according to a series of pre-
determined criteria. High ranking actions
were shortlisted, and a high-level
implantation roadmap was developed for
each shortlisted action.

4
Action Development
In advance of the workshop, the climate action
planning team (CAP team) identified a list of potential
climate mitigation actions through a review of existing
policies and plans. During the workshop, participants
were also asked to identify gaps in existing
plans/policies and suggest additional actions.
Table 1: Lagos Criteria and Weights Used to Rate Actions
Criteria
GHG abatement potential
Adaptation/resilience potential
Level of city power and capacity
Alignment with existing national policies/plans
Social acceptability
Political acceptability
Ease of implementation
Cost (CAPEX & OPEX)
Co-benefits
Action Rating and Prioritisation
The Lagos Climate Change Action Prioritisation
Workshop was conducted over three days. Each day
involved discussions with key representatives of one
of three different sector groups: solid waste and
wastewater (Day 1); transport and land-use planning
(Day 2); and stationary energy and buildings (Day 3).
Each sector workshop had approximately twenty
participants, including staff from relevant city
departments, NGOs, academia, and the private
sector. The workshops each began with a series of
presentations in the morning to ensure that all
participants had a shared understanding of the
workshop goals and the climate action challenges in
that sector. During the rest of the day, attendees were
asked to complete two exercises: 1) a Multi Criteria
Analysis (MCA) with the aim of identifying a shortlist of
prioritised climate actions for the three sector areas
and 2) a deep dive evaluation to identify
implementation steps for each shortlisted action.
The morning presentations included a review of the
current status of the sector provided by a senior
representative of a relevant city department and a
presentation from the CAP team on the 2015 base
Criteria Selection and Weighting
The Lagos CAP team worked with C40 to choose a
series of criteria before the stakeholder workshops.
The criteria were weighted based on their perceived
level of importance to the city (see Table 1).
Weight
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
1
1
0.6
year inventory and 2050 forecasts (developed using
the emissions scenario tool Pathways). Participants
were then encouraged to discuss the main challenges
and barriers to climate action in their sector.
The MCA was based on qualitative ratings assigned
by workshop participants who were separated into
breakout groups of approximately 7 individuals
organized by topic area (see Table 2 below). Each
breakout group rated a subset of the sector actions
relating to their topic, with the goal of choosing 2-4
priority actions from a list of 7-12 potential actions.
The ratings were determined by discussion and
consensus within the breakout groups. Each action
was assigned a 1-5 score for each criterion. The
criteria scores were multiplied by their corresponding
weights and then summed to generate a score for
each action. The breakout groups then presented the
results of the MCA exercise to the rest of the
workshop participants, who then collectively decided
which actions to move forward into the following
implementation roadmap session. In some cases,
individual actions from the initial list were grouped to
form a package of prioritised actions.
5
Table 2: Lagos Workshop Schedule and Breakout Groups
Criteria
Day 1: Solid Waste & Wastewater
Day 2: Transport & Land Use Planning
Day 3: Stationary Energy & Buildings
After the MCA exercise enabled the participants to
identify a shortlist of prioritised actions, the second
exercise had each breakout group prepare an
implementation roadmap for their shortlisted actions.
Participants were first asked to consider the following
topics and questions:
¨ What will the action do (provide details)?
¨ What is the current status of the action?
¨ With what other actions is the action linked?
¨ Who is responsible for implementing / overseeing the
action?
¨ What data and metrics can be used to track success of
the action?
¨ How will the action be financed?
¨ Who are the key stakeholders and what will their roles
be?
¨ Who will be impacted and who will benefit from the
action?
¨ How will the action impact residents?
¨ What are the risks and barriers?
Following a consideration of these questions,
participants were then asked to identify the key
implementation steps needed to take the action
forward and when the steps could be taken. This
information was recorded on large sheets of paper to
inform the CAP narrative.
Breakout Groups
Composting and recycling
Landfill management and gas capture
Wastewater treatment
Mass transit
Transport fuel efficiency and fuel switch
Urban planning
Renewables and decentralised energy
Biofuels and energy storage
New and existing buildings
Grid-supplied electricity and centralised energy
Results
Through this process, 21 actions were prioritised out
of 100 potential actions that were considered. After
the workshops, the CAP team took the list of
shortlisted actions from each sector to the top-
ranking officer in the relevant city department for that
sector for validation. After the shortlisted actions have
been approved by the city, there will be a final
workshop to review the prioritised list, and then the
actions will be included in the City’s CAP.
Takeaways
¨ Expert stakeholder input can be leveraged to
inform action rating and promote buy-in on
prioritisation decisions.
¨ A streamlined workshop format can maximize
input with minimal effort and time investment
from necessary stakeholders.
o A separate single-day workshop for
each sector enabled the CAP team to
target relevant stakeholders for each
sector.
o Within each sector workshop, breakout
groups by topics allowed many actions
to be rated/discussed simultaneously.
¨ Context presentations at the beginning of each
workshop can build the foundation for a
productive session and double as an opportunity
to introduce a diverse group of stakeholders to
the importance of thinking about climate change
in their sector.
¨
6
DURBAN
Durban’s process emphasized ensuring that
the initial list of potential actions had multi-
departmental buy- in and reflected the
expertise of stakeholders operating in each
sector. The list of potential actions was
developed by 1) reviewing existing plans, 2)
adding or modifying actions to match CAP
ambition, and 3) engaging with individual
departments and stakeholder groups to
iteratively revise the action list. The resulting
list of actions will be included in the Climate
Action Plan. A small sub-set of actions from
this list were then prioritised for immediate
implementation during a multi-departmental
workshop by tallying votes for actions from
each participant.
Action Development
Durban already had a set of high-level objectives
outlined in the city’s previous climate mitigation and
adaptation plans, as well as various sector level lists
of climate change related actions from municipal and
department plans. However, the Climate Action Plan
(CAP) team decided there was a need for a single
consolidated list of climate actions that had approval
across departments. The ambitious goal of carbon
neutrality by 2050 also required the consideration of
actions beyond those listed in existing plans.
The CAP team originally intended to hold one multi-
departmental workshop to review all existing actions,
eliminate those that certain departments would not
support, identify new actions, and agree on
prioritisation criteria. An initial list of actions,
developed by reviewing existing plans and the outputs
of the Pathways tool (emissions scenario tool used by
C40 cities), was presented at a multi-departmental
workshop. However, at this workshop it became clear
that more engagement with individual sector
departments was necessary to collect details on
actions and modify them to ensure that actions would
receive support from each department.
To this end, the CAP team carried out 20
engagements with individual departments. The
engagements helped the CAP team understand the
barriers to actions and provided an opportunity for the
team to work with departments to collectively identify
solutions and compromise on targets and actions.
The action list was iteratively revised as comments
from stakeholders were incorporated.
In addition, a final opportunity to provide input on the
list of actions was provided at a multi-departmental
workshop using techniques summarized in Table 1.
The purpose of these methods was to receive input
from a range of different stakeholders and avoid an
outspoken few from dominating feedback.

Table 1: Durban Action Development and Engagement Techniques

Technique Description
The initial action list was printed out on large sheets and stakeholders
Marketplace Method
provided comments directly on the sheets
Stakeholders rotated through small groups focused on key groupings of
World Café Method
actions

Through these processes, the full list of actions that
will be included in the CAP was developed. Counter to
other cities’ prioritisation processes, the purpose of
the subsequent prioritisation steps was to select
actions that should be prioritised for implementation
among all actions to be included in the CAP (rather
than prioritising actions for inclusion in the CAP).
Action Rating and Prioritisation
A final multi-stakeholder meeting was held to
prioritise specific actions. Stakeholders were asked to
vote for actions they considered “transformative”
and/or “catalytic”. The votes were tallied and the final
list of prioritised actions to be included in the CAP was
presented to decision-makers who requested that
one additional action be added to the final list.

Table 2: Durban Criteria for Prioritising Specific Actions

Criteria Definition
Actions that can reshape whole systems so that they are decarbonised
Transformative
and resilient to climate change
Actions that enable of promote decarbonisation and resilience
Catalytic
activities in other sectors

8
Results
This process resulted in the prioritisation of seven
specific actions that had received buy-in across city
departments, summarized below:
1. Establish low emission zones by limiting the entrance
of vehicles using fossil fuels and promoting non-
motorised transport (NMT)
2. Develop a funding model that considers reduced
income from electricity sales as a result of the shift to
self-generation by customers
3. Promote transit-oriented development to achieve
spatial transformation, economic and social
opportunities, and public transport efficiencies
4. Develop an Independent Power Producer support
programme to facilitate the diversification of the
supply of energy
5. Provide, manage and maintain appropriate and safe
pedestrian and cycling networks and infrastructure
6. Develop a strategy for heat mitigation that includes
guidelines for the incorporation of heat mitigation
measures in developments and urban design
7. Develop a programme to achieve 100% saturation of
energy-efficient appliances in all new and existing
residential, commercial, and municipal buildings in the
City by 2050

Takeaways

INCLUSIVE
¨ Engagement with stakeholders during the action development phase can help ensure that the initial long list of
potential actions is comprehensive, detailed, and reflects the expertise of stakeholders operating in each sector.

o The twenty individual consultations with stakeholders from different departments enabled the CAP team

CLIMATE ACTION
to learn important details about actions and add additional actions suggested by stakeholders.

¨ The C40 Action Selection and Prioritisation process is flexible and should be adapted to fit the needs of the city.

o Durban’s initial plan for the prioritisation process was modified based on feedback from decision-
makers and stakeholders. Most importantly, the CAP team pivoted from presenting stakeholders with a
Description text box [enter text]
list of potential actions to engaging them directly in the development of the action list.

¨ If many co-benefit criteria are combined with primary benefits criteria (emissions reduction and vulnerability
reduction) into a single score, the primary benefits may be de-emphasized.

o Durban decided against a long list of criteria based on development goals to a simplified list of
emissions reduction, vulnerability reduction, and return on investment.

o In the C40 Action Selection and Prioritisation process, primary benefits and co-benefits are both
evaluated, but inform separate scores. Each city can determine how primary benefits and co-benefits
should inform prioritisation.

9
MEDELLÍN
At the time of case study development, the
City of Medellín was in the process of
developing actions for its Climate Action Plan
and had not yet completed the full Acrion
Selection and Prioritisation process. The city
participated as a pilot test city for C40’s
Action Selection and Prioritisation (ASAP) Tool
Version 1 and Process Guide, and insights
from that experience are included throughout
this case study.
The purpose of action prioritisation was two-fold in
Medellín: to select a shortlist of actions to be included
in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and to select among
those the actions for near-term implementation. Prior
to development of the Action Selection and
Prioritisation (ASAP) Tool and Process Guide, the City
had already identified CAP actions and preformed an
initial prioritisation. The City then performed a second
prioritisation because they had too many actions and
wanted to shorten the list to be included in the CAP.
For actions selected for near-term implementation, it
was also important to ensure they were selected from
other climate change plans in the region. The
overarching purpose in prioritising was to support
plan implementation. The CAP development team
knew that if they want initiatives to receive budget
funding and political support for implementation,
those actions must be in the plan.
Action Development
As with many other cities, Medellín’s first step was to
look to other plans in the City and the region to see
what applicable actions have been considered.
During the first stage of CAP development and action
prioritisation in 2017/2018, the City contracted with
a local university that helped to review all plans in the
region and locally. Through this process, the City and
university involved delegates from organizations
associated with these plans and organized the
delegates into 11 topic area committees. The City
then held a workshop where delegates prioritised the
actions they considered most important.
During the second phase of action development and
prioritisation in 2019, the only participants were the
core CAP team, which included City staff from the
Environmental Department and the C40 City Advisor.
In this phase, the CAP team selected some of the
actions that were identified as very important to other
plans and considered the City’s GHG inventory to
ensure CAP actions were developed to respond to the
most important emissions sources. The City then
facilitated a series of workshops with internal
stakeholders from different GHG inventory sectors
(buildings and energy, transportation, waste). These
workshops included people who will ultimately lead
action implementation, and participants were
essential in helping the CAP team to understand
which actions will have the greatest impact. The CAP
team also reviewed reports and other resources from
C40, regional plans, and the national government
plan (No Carbon Colombia), and took different action
ideas from these sources. The City was then preparing
to filter these actions to develop a complete list for
use in the full prioritisation process.
The City’s intent is to validate action prioritisation
results again later with public input. Once the list of
actions is prioritised the City will include them in the
inclusive climate action (ICA) process to better
understand their social impacts.
Criteria Selection and Weighting
Before the CAP team started the action rating
process, they initially wanted to choose a long list of
co- benefit criteria to demonstrate how impactful the
CAP actions are beyond GHG reductions. However,
the team later realized it was important to narrow this
list to consider what is most important in rating
climate actions and think critically about what is most
relevant for Medellín. This includes air quality and
inclusivity, which have a special focus within the city.
11
Action Rating and Prioritisation
The CAP team divided actions into their corresponding
emissions sectors and two team members were
responsible for rating energy actions, one rated
transportation actions, and one rated the waste
actions. They did a practice exercise together to rate 6
actions to collectively understand the rating questions
and process. Upon reviewing the exercise results
together, they realized the need to be clear about
defining actions as a programme, policy, or project.
They also discovered the importance in ensuring all
raters have the same understanding of criteria option
definitions.
It should be noted that during case study development,
the city was undergoing an administration change, and
the CAP team completed the action prioritisation pilot
test with only staff from the Environmental Department.
The incoming city staff will be responsible for full action
evaluation, and while city officers who remain in office
could weigh in on the process, to achieve the City’s
inclusivity goals staff from other departments will also
need to participate.
Takeaways
¨ Evaluation criteria selection should be focused (instead of overly broad) and based on aspects of local
importance.
¨ It is essential that all action raters have a shared understanding of the rating options and definitions; a
practice evaluation session can be used to help identify potential areas of confusion and achieve consensus
on definitions.
¨ A city can have multiple purposes for prioritisation, such as narrowing down a long list of actions or identifying
near-term objectives.
Results
As mentioned above, the City will perform a complete
action prioritisation process with multiple city
departments following the pilot test, so the initial
results from that exercise are not final. However, the
CAP team still learned some important lessons based
on their initial use of the ASAP Tool and are already
planning for how the Tool’s outputs can help to further
CAP development. For example, the team found the
co-benefit filter for different action types to be very
informative in helping to identify potential action
gaps. They also intend to use the feasibility analysis
results to help define additional actions to help
overcome implementation barriers. The greatest
challenge that their small CAP team faced during the
pilot test was a lack of deep technical knowledge,
particularly in the energy sector actions. The team
anticipates that this challenge can be overcome, as
least in part, with participation from additional City
staff.
“The CAP team learned some
important lessons based on their
initial use of the Tool and are already
planning for how the Tool’s outputs
can help to further CAP development.
For example, the team found the co-
benefit filter for different action types
to be very informative in helping to
identify potential action gaps”
12