TO THE EDITOR:
The disasters that have affected various cities make clear that we live in a new climate reality. Faced with this scenario, adapting urban planning is no longer an option but an urgency, for today we live in cities designed for a climate that simply no longer exists.
A climate event does not automatically become a disaster. Its impact also depends on where it occurs, on how we have occupied the territory, and on our capacity to reduce its consequences.
What happened in San Carlos de Apoquindo is an eloquent example: nine months after a forest fire that damaged vegetation cover and promoted soil erosion, intense rains once again exposed the vulnerability of that territory. The risk was known, but the institutional response failed to anticipate at the pace the problem demanded.
Are our institutions closing the gap between information, planning, and investment decisions in this context? Unfortunately not, or at least not at the speed and urgency we would like. For example, roughly 40% of municipalities still have yet to update their disaster risk reduction plans, and at the same time, significant gaps persist in the development of municipal climate action plans.
On the Investment in Cities Platform, it can be observed that between 2013 and 2023, only 0.1% of the initiatives entered into the Integrated Project Bank…
AI Brief
Your highlights
This is how a flash flood is generated, the phenomenon that caused the flood in Las Condes. Photo: ATON. Comments
DEAR DIRECTOR:
The disasters that have affected various cities make it evident that we are living in a new climate reality. Faced with this scenario, adapting urban planning is no longer an option but an urgency, because today we live in cities designed for a climate that simply no longer exists. A weather event does not automatically become a disaster. Its impact also depends on where it occurs, on how we have occupied the territory, and on our capacity to reduce its consequences. What happened in San Carlos de Apoquindo is an eloquent example: nine months after a forest fire that damaged vegetation cover and promoted soil erosion, intense rains once again exposed the vulnerability of that territory. The risk was known, but the institutional response failed to anticipate at the pace the problem demanded.
Are our institutions closing the gap between information, planning, and investment decisions in this context? Unfortunately no, or at least not at the speed and urgency we would like. For example, roughly 40% of municipalities still need to update their disaster risk reduction plans, and at the same time, significant gaps persist in the development of municipal climate action plans. On the Investment in Cities Platform, it can be observed that between 2013 and 2023, only 0.1% of the initiatives entered into the Integrated Projects Bank were aimed at reducing territorial vulnerability to disasters. Climate planning and investment remain secondary for many. Today, threats go beyond what we are culturally accustomed to, with unprecedented weather events that force us to look differently at ravines, soil porosity, and the location of critical infrastructure, among many other dimensions that planning adapted to the new reality must address. If we do not take it seriously, we will remain trapped in a vicious cycle of climate vulnerability, in which each extreme event deteriorates the environmental and material conditions that would allow us to face the next one. Perhaps we cannot avoid damage in cities, but we can prevent our decisions—or the delay in making them—from turning it into disasters.
Martín Andrade Ruiz-Tagle
Executive Director
Corporación Ciudades
More about: Disasters, Climate reality, Urban planning, Investment, Another view