The way that infrastructure is planned, designed, financed, delivered and maintained needs a fundamental rethink in order to meet the needs of growing cities in Asia, according to an ADB technical paper written in conjunction with the Global Centre on Adaptation (GCA). The recommendations of the paper are geared towards a fundamental shift in mindset about how to increase resilience to climate change and other shocks and stresses, while also supporting the development objectives of the cities by delivering access to critical services and making the urban environment more livable.

​

The new approach is especially important as ADB has identified building climate and disaster resilience as one of seven operational priorities under its Strategy 2030. It has also set an ambition to commit $100 billion to climate adaptation and mitigation between 2019 and 2030. Meeting its targets will require expanding investments in climate adaptation, especially in the context of infrastructure investments.

​

A change in mindset

​

The paper suggests moving away from an asset-centric approach to infrastructure development and towards systems thinking. This can help unlock new ways of approaching infrastructure development, and even what constitutes ‘infrastructure’ itself. In fact, if a problem can be solved without any new infrastructure intervention at all, then this could be the best approach.

​

For example, conventional approaches to flood management in a city might lead to the installation of a hard infrastructure asset such as a flood barrier or levee. However, the same impact may be achieved at lower cost by using a combination of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) such as new parks and green spaces which can also double as detention ponds, better zoning and planning to ensure critical infrastructure and vulnerable populations are not exposed, and an effective early warning system so residents can be evacuated ahead of time.

​

Changes along the project cycle

​

The report explains that a systems approach requires new thinking at all stages of the infrastructure development cycle. Importantly, there is a need to move climate-resilient infrastructure planning upstream, and to ensure it is better integrated at a strategic level. The paper also indicates that better use of analytical tools to understand climate risk at a systems level is needed, such as ADB’s Spatial Data Analysis Explorer (SPADE) tool. This shift will require sustained engagement to foster leadership from governmental finance and planning ministries to allow for more efficient and flexible responses.

​

In UCCRTF, we have also found that this strategic level for integrating resilience is at the project concept stage when they are still identifying the project coverage. This is done through the conduct of CRVAs at national, regional, city level, at each stage incrementally identifying specific risks/vulnerabilities which in turn inform the project components and design.

​

The paper argues a systems approach requires three main actions:

1. Moving resilience upstream by integrating climate risk assessment into strategic and early-stage planning of infrastructure, to provide strategic coherence and efficient delivery;

2. Investing financial resources in adaptation projects, especially green adaptation infrastructure (nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based adaptation), to reduce climate risks and deliver economic growth and socioeconomic benefits; and

3. Mainstreaming the use of climate-resilient standards and regulations throughout the process of infrastructure development, to simplify and deliver resilience.

​

As Figure 1 shows, climate change will fundamentally alter the context in which infrastructure is financed and delivered over the next few decades. Governments and private infrastructure providers will need to prepare for increased risks of asset-value losses, increases in capital and operating costs, and/or a decline in the economic benefits or revenues that infrastructure assets generate.

​

As infrastructure investment in Asia’s cities increases, a new approach is needed to ensure development and maintenance of infrastructure is affordable. Increased pressure from climate-related shocks and stresses, means that unless changes are made in current practices, we risk facing higher costs, lower service quality, and increasing liabilities for the public sector, according to the paper (see Figure 1).