funding for networking and attending meetings
in person, technical expertise) that prevented the
policymakers from contributing more to the
networks. Also, language barriers could be a
minor but limiting obstacle. Not all stakeholders
spoke English and technical documents were
often only available in the national languages
(and translating them constituted a significant
investment of time). Another general threat for
transnational networks, especially for those that
demand the payment of a membership fee, could
be posed by administrative or political changes
that might lead to a shift in (political) priorities.
This could result in a threat for networking
continuity.
Additionally, the interviewed stakeholders
were asked about their recommendations for how
the networks they joined could improve C2CL.
What some interviewees suggested was to create
an easily accessible database with meaningful
information about the member cities or to provide metrics for measuring the benefits of the
networks. Others stated that they would appreciate it if there was collaboration or at least
coordination across different networks. This
would allow using the resources at disposal in a
more integrated manner. It was also stressed that
having the opportunity to listen to and interact
with experts, which could be arranged by networks, could be very helpful. Further suggestions
for improvement included: (i) more assistance on
how to correctly apply for funding, (ii) the
establishment of standardised training courses on
climate change adaptation, (iii) the inclusion of
regional governments, (iv) a stronger linkage of
the network activities to the Conference of the
Parties (COP) discussion, (v) measures to
increase the recognition of networks and (vi) extending networks to executives and politicians or
the establishment of a network coach, who could
focus on maximizing the networks potential.
6 Concluding Remarks
C2CL is of all times, but only since the last years,
it has been explicitly being named, studied,
documented (if at all). It thus remains a rather
young concept with a limited base of practice,
case studies, and guidance. To make deliberate
and strategic change and to accelerate the uptake
of good practices, the results reveal that it is
generally recognised that cities need to engage in
C2CL networks and have to learn from lessons of
other cities. The learning aspect was also pointed
out as one important reason to participate in
transnational city networks. Networks, such as
UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient Campaign,
Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities,
EU Mayors Adapt, C40 or ICLEI, are currently
providing the platforms to build and share evidence around adaptation in practice.
Cities engaging in networked learning are
looking for practical exchanges on progress. The
involved stakeholders want to learn from and
share knowledge with peers from cities that face
similar challenges. Being part of a transnational
network and engaging in C2C exchanges within
these can help to promote and position the climate adaptation and resilience work within the
own city council and thus helps to receive the
critical support from the political side. There is
wide recognition that personal contacts based on
mutual trust between the stakeholders, that represent the cities engaged in the knowledge
exchanges, are crucial, and many interviewed
stakeholders confirmed that city networks helped
to create these. Stronger involvement of the private sector was requested by some interviewees
and is part of the working agenda of some networks, however with a very different priority
from network to network. How to successfully
involve business in climate adaptation remains a
critical and mainly unanswered question. This
points to the need to examine and evaluate the
outcomes of different network practices.
While this chapter has offered a rather global
and generic perspective of C2CL in transnational
city networks, it is crucial to gain a better
understanding of the usefulness of the various
specific network programs. Firstly, in relation to
how they concretely support C2CL, and secondly, how and to what extent they cater the
cities needs to climate adaptation and in general
transformation towards sustainability, e.g., by
adopting a nexus approach to resources
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
235
in person, technical expertise) that prevented the
policymakers from contributing more to the
networks. Also, language barriers could be a
minor but limiting obstacle. Not all stakeholders
spoke English and technical documents were
often only available in the national languages
(and translating them constituted a significant
investment of time). Another general threat for
transnational networks, especially for those that
demand the payment of a membership fee, could
be posed by administrative or political changes
that might lead to a shift in (political) priorities.
This could result in a threat for networking
continuity.
Additionally, the interviewed stakeholders
were asked about their recommendations for how
the networks they joined could improve C2CL.
What some interviewees suggested was to create
an easily accessible database with meaningful
information about the member cities or to provide metrics for measuring the benefits of the
networks. Others stated that they would appreciate it if there was collaboration or at least
coordination across different networks. This
would allow using the resources at disposal in a
more integrated manner. It was also stressed that
having the opportunity to listen to and interact
with experts, which could be arranged by networks, could be very helpful. Further suggestions
for improvement included: (i) more assistance on
how to correctly apply for funding, (ii) the
establishment of standardised training courses on
climate change adaptation, (iii) the inclusion of
regional governments, (iv) a stronger linkage of
the network activities to the Conference of the
Parties (COP) discussion, (v) measures to
increase the recognition of networks and (vi) extending networks to executives and politicians or
the establishment of a network coach, who could
focus on maximizing the networks potential.
6 Concluding Remarks
C2CL is of all times, but only since the last years,
it has been explicitly being named, studied,
documented (if at all). It thus remains a rather
young concept with a limited base of practice,
case studies, and guidance. To make deliberate
and strategic change and to accelerate the uptake
of good practices, the results reveal that it is
generally recognised that cities need to engage in
C2CL networks and have to learn from lessons of
other cities. The learning aspect was also pointed
out as one important reason to participate in
transnational city networks. Networks, such as
UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient Campaign,
Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities,
EU Mayors Adapt, C40 or ICLEI, are currently
providing the platforms to build and share evidence around adaptation in practice.
Cities engaging in networked learning are
looking for practical exchanges on progress. The
involved stakeholders want to learn from and
share knowledge with peers from cities that face
similar challenges. Being part of a transnational
network and engaging in C2C exchanges within
these can help to promote and position the climate adaptation and resilience work within the
own city council and thus helps to receive the
critical support from the political side. There is
wide recognition that personal contacts based on
mutual trust between the stakeholders, that represent the cities engaged in the knowledge
exchanges, are crucial, and many interviewed
stakeholders confirmed that city networks helped
to create these. Stronger involvement of the private sector was requested by some interviewees
and is part of the working agenda of some networks, however with a very different priority
from network to network. How to successfully
involve business in climate adaptation remains a
critical and mainly unanswered question. This
points to the need to examine and evaluate the
outcomes of different network practices.
While this chapter has offered a rather global
and generic perspective of C2CL in transnational
city networks, it is crucial to gain a better
understanding of the usefulness of the various
specific network programs. Firstly, in relation to
how they concretely support C2CL, and secondly, how and to what extent they cater the
cities needs to climate adaptation and in general
transformation towards sustainability, e.g., by
adopting a nexus approach to resources
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
235