C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group

Action Selection
and Prioritisation
(ASAP) Version 1
111Actions
Facilitation Guide
Prioritisation
Supported by:
CONTENTS
Introduction 3

Workshop 1: Criteria Selection and Weighting 5

Workshop 2: Action Rating 8

Workshop 3: Final Prioritisation 11

2
INTRODUCTION

3
OVERVIEW
This document is intended to provide guidance to C40
City Advisors and other city staff on how to facilitate
exercises during three different stakeholder
workshops that are envisioned for the Action
Selection and Prioritisation Process.
The three workshops include:
¨ Workshop 1: Criteria Selection and Weighting
¨ Workshop 2: Action Rating
¨ Workshop 3: Final Prioritisation
WORKSHOP STRUCTURE OPTIONS
As the entire prioritisation process has been designed
to be flexible to the unique contexts of different cities,
the workshop exercises include different options for
structure and method. The workshop facilitator
should read through this Facilitator Guide and then
adapt the generic exercises based on what will work
best for their city.
The three workshops are described in this document
assuming that they will be held on separate days,
possibly spaced over several weeks. However, the
workshop facilitator may wish to combine Workshops
1 and 2 or 2 and 3 depending on the Climate Action
Plan (CAP) schedule and level of stakeholder
engagement in their city.
Regardless of how they are customized, workshops
should all include some key components. Each
workshop should begin with introductions followed by
a presentation from the City Advisor and/or other
primary CAP team members. This presentation should
begin with a brief overview of C40 and the Climate
These workshops are part of a larger Action Selection
and Prioritisation Process that is described in full in
the Process Guide. This module also includes sample
agendas for each of the three workshops, a
PowerPoint slide deck that covers each workshop and
can be customized by the workshop facilitator, and a
draft Workshop Handbook that provides participants
with relevant information and participatory exercise
sheets; the Handbook can also be customized by
workshop facilitators in advance of the meetings.
Action Planning Programme to provide context for
workshop participants. In addition to specific
workshop goals, each workshop is an opportunity to
institutionalize consideration of climate change
across different sectors and stakeholder groups in the
city.
The workshop facilitator should then provide an
overview of the Action Prioritisation Process,
describing how the workshop will build on what has
been done previously. The workshop facilitator should
clearly articulate the objectives of the workshop and
how the outcomes will inform the next steps in the
process before explaining and facilitating the exercise
portion(s). After the exercises are complete, the
workshop facilitator should close the workshop by
reporting back on the outcomes of each exercise, with
an emphasis on how the results will be used to inform
subsequent steps. Generic slides that cover each of
these topics are included in the Workshop Module
Slide Deck.
4
WORKSHOP 1
Criteria Selection and Weighting

5
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this workshop is to determine, as a
group, what co-benefit and feasibility criteria should
be used to evaluated potential actions, as well as if
any of those criteria should be weighted more highly
in comparison to others.
Each city is unique, so this workshop is an opportunity
to ensure that the evaluation of actions reflects the
city’s priorities and development objectives. Actions
that provide benefits that a broad group of
stakeholders has agreed are important to the city will
be more likely to have community and political
support and therefore implementation support.
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
It is recommended that the Criteria Selection and
Weighting Workshop be attended by a wide variety of
stakeholders. As the selection of criteria will influence
how all actions across all sectors and climate hazards
will be rated, it is important that the group of
stakeholders invited to this workshop are
representative of all relevant sectors and city
departments.
Decisions regarding what criteria to include and how
they should be weighted, especially for co-benefits,
WORKSHOP STRUCTURE OPTIONS
The structure of the criteria selection and weighting
exercise will depend on how many participants attend
the workshop. If the workshop will involve a small
group of participants (for example, less than 10
individuals), decisions can be made through a
facilitated group discussion.
If the workshop will involve a larger group of
participants (for example, more than 10 individuals),
decisions should be made by voting. The workshop
facilitator and relevant CAP team members should
determine rules for the voting process in advance.
Some examples for the types of voting rule
considerations include:
¨ Should participants be able to vote for as many
criteria as they want, or only be allowed to vote for
a certain number of criteria (e.g., “Vote for your
top 5 criteria”)?
SUMMARY
During this workshop, participants will be familiarized
with the C40 CAP Programme, the action prioritisation
process, and the framework for rating actions
(primary benefits, co-benefits, and feasibility). They
will have the opportunity to review the list of potential
co-benefit and feasibility criteria and then, either
through discussion or voting, determine which criteria
should be selected and if any weights should apply.
Participants will leave the workshop with an
understanding of how their priorities were reflected in
the selection of criteria and how this will directly
impact which actions are included in the final plan.
are essentially value judgements about what the city
believes is important. Key decision-makers (or their
representatives) should be invited to ensure that the
action rating process prioritises actions that reflect
the priorities of those who will ultimately determine if
an action is implemented. Representatives of
impacted or socially vulnerable communities should
also be invited to ensure that their values and
priorities are reflected in the criteria selection.
¨ Should individual participants be allowed to vote,
or should multiple participants who represent the
same organization/city department vote as a
group?
¨ How will the results of the voting inform criteria
selection and weighting? Will the 5 criteria that
receive the most votes automatically be selected,
for example, or is the number of criteria included
to be determined based on how votes are
distributed across the criteria?
¨ Should definition of criteria weights be
determined based on the number of votes that
each criterion received, or will weighting be based
on a second vote or discussion after the criteria
are selected?
6
WORKSHOP MATERIALS
In addition to customizing the presentation slides, the workshop facilitator can also customize the draft
Workshop Handbook, as needed. In support of this exercise, the Handbook will include:
¨ The list of potential evaluation criteria with
definitions for each criterion
¨ Space for participants to write down custom
criteria suggestions and evaluation options
EXERCISE
After the workshop facilitator has reviewed the list of
potential criteria with participants, the exercise
portion of the workshop can begin. Selection and
weighting decisions should first be made for co-
benefits and then for feasibility (or vice versa), rather
than selecting criteria for both and then deciding on
weights for both. This is to avoid participants
incorrectly thinking that weights assigned reflect the
relative importance of co-benefit criteria versus
feasibility criteria.
Option 1: Decision by Discussion
If criteria decisions are to be made by discussion, the
workshop facilitator should do their best to ensure
that all participants in the workshop are given the
opportunity to speak so that decisions are not
dominated by an outspoken few. The facilitator could
ask each participant to tell the group which criteria
they think are most important or go through the
criteria one by one and let the group discuss if that
criterion should be included.
The facilitator can ask participants if they think
criteria should be weighted or if they should all have
equal influence on the scores. When determining
weights, the facilitator should emphasize two points:
¨ For co-benefits, weighting should be based on the
relative value placed on each criterion by
stakeholders.
¨ For feasibility, weighting should be based on the
relative influence that each criterion has on ease
of implementation based on local context. This is
less of a value judgement and more a
representation of the realities of how decisions
are made in the city.
Before each discussion phase begins, the facilitator
should tell participants how much time has been
allotted for discussion. The facilitator should keep the
conversation moving forward so that all criteria are
discussed and should conclude the discussion by
articulating the group’s decisions on criteria and
weighting selection.
¨ Ballot forms to indicate a participant’s or group’s
criteria preferences, if the exercise decisions will
be based on voting. The ballot will be structured
so that workshop facilitators can quickly tally
votes during the workshop, and report results
back to the group for further discussion.
Option 2: Decision by Voting
If criteria decisions are to be made by voting, the
facilitator should clearly communicate the voting
rules (see Exercise Structure Options above) and then
give participants time to complete their ballots. As
participants turn in their ballots, the facilitator can
tally votes and prepare to report results back to the
group. In large group workshops, the facilitator could
also ask participants to break into smaller groups to
discuss criteria and weighting selection, and
complete one ballot per group.
Some final discussion as a large group will likely be
necessary to decide how to interpret the results (i.e.,
to determine the cut-off for including or excluding
criteria based on vote scores). This can be achieved
in different ways. For example, there could be a pre-
determined number of criteria to be selected (e.g., 7)
and the top criteria are included based on the number
of votes received. Or the facilitator can identify where
there is a clear break based on the distribution of
votes. For example, if 5 co-benefit criteria received 10
or more votes and the other criteria each received 6
votes or fewer, those 5 high-scoring criteria could be
selected.
Weights could be determined by the number of votes
each criterion received, with criteria that receive more
votes being weighted higher than criteria than receive
fewer votes. However, the resulting weights should
also be sense-checked and discussed. For example,
is a criterion that received 10 votes twice as important
as a criterion that received 5 votes, or should it just
be rated slightly higher? Are the weights that result
from the voting process going to upset any
stakeholder groups or make them feel like their
interests are no longer being represented? The
facilitator can also ask participants if they would
prefer to not weight criteria at all. The facilitator
should conclude the exercise by reporting back which
criteria will be included and how they will be weighted.
7
WORKSHOP 2
Action Rating

8
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this workshop is to leverage
stakeholder expertise to rate the potential actions
based on the previously selected criteria.
SUMMARY
During this workshop, participants will have the
opportunity review the criteria against which they will
be rating actions for primary benefits, co-benefits, and
feasibility. Then they will be guided through the
process of rating each action for each criterion, either
as a single group or in breakout groups, depending on
the number of participants and sectors represented.
Participants will leave the workshop with an
understanding of how their ratings will inform action
scores to be reviewed in the final workshop.
WORKSHOP STRUCTURE OPTIONS
The workshop should be organized based on the
number of participants that the facilitator expects will
attend. If the workshop organizers can only gather a
small group of participants, the actions can be rated
as a single group through consensus by discussion. If
the organizers can gather a medium-sized group of
stakeholders, the workshop could be a single event
where representatives of different sectors are split
into breakout groups to rate actions that are relevant
to their sector.
If many stakeholders are expected to attend, a series
of sector- or topic-specific workshops could be
organized. Stakeholders invited to each session
should be relevant to that sector and can be further
split into breakout groups by topic, if desired. For
example, a waste sector workshop could include
waste sector breakout groups on compost and
recycling, landfills/methane capture, and wastewater
treatment. The workshop organizers should plan for
no more than 7 participants in each breakout group,
INTENDED
PARTICIPANTS
While Workshops 1 and 3 involve making decisions
that are essentially value judgments, the emphasis of
Workshop 2 is on leveraging stakeholders’ technical
expertise to generate accurate ratings for each
action. Rather than inviting decision-makers and/or
community representatives, stakeholders invited to
this workshop should be technical experts in their
respective topic areas or sectors. For example, to the
extent practicable transportation experts should rate
transportation actions, waste experts should rate
waste actions, and so on.
as larger groups could have trouble efficiently
discussing and reaching consensus on how actions
should be rated. For example, if there are 6
participants total for the waste sector workshop, they
could rate actions together, but if there are 20
participants, they could be organized into three
breakout groups.
An additional consideration is the level of familiarity
participants will have with climate action planning. If
the level of familiarity is generally low, the facilitator
may decide that primary benefits criteria will be more
accurately rated by the city’s CAP team, while the co-
benefits and feasibility criteria can be rated by a
larger group of participants. Co-benefits and
feasibility are concepts that stakeholders will likely
understand more readily, while those with little prior
knowledge of climate action planning may have
difficulty accurately rating the emissions reduction or
risk reduction criteria.
9
WORKSHOP MATERIALS
In addition to customizing the presentation slides, the workshop facilitator can also customize the draft Workshop
Handbook, as needed. In support of this exercise, the Handbook will include:
¨ A table with all the evaluation criteria and the definitions for rating options within each

o The workshop organizer should customize the sample evaluation criteria table included in the draft
Handbook to reflect the criteria selected in Workshop 1: Criteria Selection and Weighting, including
any custom criteria defined in that workshop.

¨ A table summarizing all actions that passed the initial screening step in the Tool

¨ Action matrices with the list of actions to be rated and the selected evaluation criteria; one action matrix to
be provided for each score area (i.e., Primary Benefits, Co-benefits, Feasibility)

o The workshop organizer should customize the sample action matrices included in the draft
Handbook to reflect the city’s potential action list and chosen criteria. The list of actions should
come from the Action Selection and Prioritisation (ASAP) Tool Version 1 and reflect the set of actions
that passed the initial screening stage. Workshop organizers can go to Step 7: Final Prioritisation in
the Tool and click the “Export Data” button on the Tabular Results & Prioritised Action Selection
screen. The list of actions can then be copied directly from the exported Excel file. Workshop
organizers can then delete from the draft action matrices the columns for evaluation criteria that
were not selected to be used.

o If action rating will be carried out by sector- or topic-specific groups, the workshop organizer can
customize the action matrices provided to each group of participants (e.g., the Waste group would
receive matrices with waste-related actions only).

EXERCISE
After the facilitator has reviewed the list of evaluation criterion and then move on to the next criterion for all
criteria with participants, the exercise portion of the actions. This way, participants will only have to
workshop can begin. As described in Workshop familiarize themselves with the rating options within
Structure Options above, participants may be rating each criterion once.
actions in a single group or in breakout groups. In
Before the exercise begins, the facilitator should tell
either option, participants should work their way
participants how much time has been allotted for
through the list of actions they are to rate, discussing
action rating and provide time updates throughout
within their group what the ratings should be. As
the exercise. The facilitator can also monitor progress
agreement is reached on each criterion, a notetaker
at each group to make sure discussions are moving
should recording the final ratings on the action table
quickly enough to rate all assigned actions. When the
included in the Handbook. Other participants may
allotted time expires, the facilitator should give each
follow along and record decisions in their own copies
group the opportunity to report back on the actions
of the Handbook, but only one set of results should be
they scored. Here, the focus could be on reporting
turned in to the workshop organizer upon completion
disagreements or points of confusion during the
of the exercise.
action rating exercise. The facilitator should then
If there are many actions but few criteria, participants conclude the exercise by explaining how the ratings
may find it most efficient to rate each action for all participants just provided will inform the final
criteria before moving to the next action. However, if prioritisation of actions, which happens in the next
there are many actions and many criteria, it may be workshop.
easier for participants to rate all actions for a single

10
WORKSHOP 3
Final Prioritisation

11
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this workshop is for a broad group of
stakeholders to agree on a final list of actions to be
included in the Climate Action Plan (CAP), based on
how actions performed in the action rating. It is
recommended that 20-30 actions should be
prioritised, including a mix of mitigation and
adaptation actions.
SUMMARY
During this workshop, participants will review the
framework that was used to rate actions (primary
benefits, co-benefits, and feasibility) and the criteria
used in the evaluation. The facilitator will then present
the results of the action rating process using graphics
and charts generated from the Tool outputs and guide
participants through the process of discussing and
selecting a final prioritised list of actions. Participants
will leave the workshop with an understanding of how
input was incorporated at various stages to inform the
prioritised list.
INTENDED
PARTICIPANTS
Like Workshop 1, the final prioritisation workshop is
envisioned as a single multi-departmental/multi-
stakeholder workshop. As this meeting will determine
which actions the city will implement, it should be
attended by a wide variety of stakeholders
representing all relevant sectors, key decision-makers
or their representatives, and impacted or socially
vulnerable communities to ensure that the decisions
made have broad support.
If the city has decided that it will prioritise mitigation
and adaptation actions separately, the workshop
organizer should consider holding two separate
meetings with different stakeholders invited to each.
However, if the workshop organizer does not
anticipate the stakeholder groups would vary widely,
it may be more efficient to hold the mitigation and
adaptation meetings on the same day (e.g., prioritise
mitigation actions in morning and adaptation actions
in the afternoon).

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE OPTIONS

The structure of the final prioritisation exercise will depend on how many participants are attending the
workshop. If the workshop will involve a small to medium group of participants (less than 20 individuals),
decisions could be made through a single facilitated group discussion. If the group is larger, it may be more
efficient to split into breakout groups for discussions and have each group report back on their key decisions.

WORKSHOP MATERIALS
In addition to customizing the presentation slides, the workshop facilitator can also customize the draft
Workshop Handbook, as needed. In support of this exercise, the Handbook will include:
¨ A summary table of the action ratings, including Primary Benefits score, Co-benefits score, and Feasibility
score

o This can be exported from the Tabular Results & Prioritised Action Selection screen in Step 7: Final
Prioritisation of the Tool. Workshop organizers can also filter this table to show only mitigation
actions, only adaptation actions, or both.

¨ Charts showing the Top Scoring Actions from the Tool for each of the score categories.

o Note that while the presentation should also include these graphics, participants may wish to
reference the charts throughout the workshop exercise to support informed decision making.

12
EXERCISE
After the facilitator has presented the action rating
results, the exercise portion of the workshop can
begin. To guide the discussion, the facilitator can
pose the following questions to the group:
¨ Should prioritisation be based on Primary
Benefits first and foremost, or with equal
consideration given to primary benefits and co-
benefits?
¨ Should all actions with high benefits and high
feasibility be prioritised automatically? If there are
more than 20-30 actions that fall into this
category, the discussion will likely focus on which
of these could be de-prioritised in the interim.
¨ Note that defining a threshold for what is a high
score for benefits and feasibility will be city
specific and can be discussed with participants
during this exercise
¨ If there are less than 20-30 actions with high
benefits and high feasibility, the group could next
consider actions with high benefits and lower
feasibility or those with low benefits and higher
feasibility.
The facilitator should do their best to ensure that all
participants in the workshop are given the opportunity
to speak so that decisions are not dominated by an
outspoken few. The facilitator could ask each
participant to tell the group which actions they think
are most important or could lead the group through
the actions one by one and decide which to include.
Before the discussion phase begins, the facilitator
should tell participants how much time has been
allotted for final action prioritisation and should keep
the conversation moving to ensure that decisions are
made within the allotted time. While participants are
making prioritisation decisions, the facilitator or other
CAP team members can enter this information into
the Tabular Results & Prioritised Action Selection
screen in the Tool.
Once the allotted discussion time is up, the facilitator
can show the Summary Dashboard screen in the Tool
and discuss with the group if there are any gaps
based on the chosen actions. For example, if the
Summary Dashboard shows that 8 Waste actions
were prioritised and only 1 Stationary Energy action,
the facilitator might ask the group if any revisions
should be made to the list of prioritised actions.
Guiding questions for this discussion could include:
¨ Are all sectors and climate hazards addressed,
and addressed to an appropriate extent given
their relevance in the city?
¨ Is there a good mix of action types, timescales,
and scale?
¨ Are there any gaps in the prioritised action list? If
so, should the list be modified at all or does the
support for the current list of actions outweigh the
potential benefit of addressing any gaps?
The facilitator should conclude the exercise by
reporting back on which actions will be prioritised and
any other decisions made by the group. Finally, the
facilitator should explain how the decisions made
during this workshop will be reflected in the final CAP
document.
13