Checklist for defining a Local Vision for CNSC Members

Members of the Cooperative Network of Sustainable Cities (CNSC) have signed a CNSC Membership Declaration and pledged to use a Multistakeholder Dialogue (MSD) for elaborating a Vision guiding them towards a carbon neutral, disaster resilient and energy-inclusive future.

The Multistakeholder Dialogue (MSD) is a structured dialogue organized in view of elaborating the vision of the CNSC Member. The MSD is guided by the Focal Point of the Member and assisted by APSEC or a designated qualified contractor. The stakeholders of the Member include local stakeholder groups such as universities and science parks, electricity and fuel industry, telecommunication industry, finance and green finance, agriculture and food industry, and vulnerable populations (women’s organizations, youth, lowest income quintiles). The MSD makes all efforts to decide by consensus.

“Focal Point” designates a senior planning officer of the Member who represents the Member with CNSC and in the MSD. In case of persistent impossibility to generate consensus among MSD stakeholders on a specific question, or persistent disagreement among the MSD stakeholders on that question, the Focal Point of the Member decides on that question.

“Vision” designates a negotiated document of minimum 500 words (approx. one page); it can be longer and may contain visual materials, provided that stakeholders agree on its content. The Vision should be inspiring, energizing, hopeful, positive, clear, allow for tough decisions, guide decision-making and allocation of resources, and create consistency. The Member is encouraged to elaborate the Vision in the local language as well as in English. APEC can bear the cost of translating the Vision to English. The Vision should state:

·       The Member’s overarching purpose if it exists and can be described in one sentence.

·       The Member’s 3 to 5 core values if they exist and can be expressed around keywords arranged in order of decreasing importance. Core values are values to be preserved in the very long run, even beyond mid-century

·       The Member’s 3 to 5 biggest current sustainability challenges (in order of decreasing importance)

·       The Member’s 3 to 5 most important measures addressing sustainability (in order of decreasing importance)

·       The Member’s 3 to 5 biggest current disaster threats (in order of decreasing importance)

·       The Member’s 3 to 5 most important measures improving disaster resilience. On this point, the following questions may give some guidance:

o   Is there an early warning system, and does it reach 100% of the threatened population?

o   Are there emergency response plans that integrate professionals as well as community organizations?

o   Have staffing needs been defined, and is there sufficient staff to support the disaster response duties?

o   Have equipment and supply needs been defined for disaster situations, and is there sufficient equipment (shelter able to withstand disasters, rescue equipment, medical supplies, food and water supplies, fuel, batteries, clothing, bedding) for those situations?

o   Is there sufficient solidarity (co-ordination, cooperation and interoperability) in emergency situations with neighboring cities?

o   Is there sufficient training for emergency situations? Is it efficient and is it sufficiently well embedded in local sports or cultural events?

·       How the Member would react if it became certain that by mid-century the use of carbon-emitting fuels would be impossible without fully neutralizing their emissions. To answer this question and bearing in mind Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., universal access to electricity and to clean cooking fuels, per capita installed renewable electricity capacity, broadband internet, mobile phones), the Member will specially identify:

o   The Member’s strengths (3 – 5) to deal with this task

o   The Member’s weaknesses (3 – 5) in this task

o   The opportunities (3 – 5) arising for the Member from this task

o   The challenges (3 – 5) the Member would address to face this task

·       Whether the MSD should become a regular consultative body.

Version: December 2022