From Challenges to Pathways: Advancing Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Contexts

The Connective Cities learning process on “Nature at the Heart of Urban Resilience” was officially launched through a three-day kick-off workshop held in Naivasha, Kenya from 21 to 23 April 2026, bringing together 20 municipalities and cities from across Sub-Saharan Africa and Germany, alongside over 40 urban practitioners, technical experts, and institutional partners.

The workshop marked the starting point of a longer-term engagement aimed at supporting local governments in translating their urban challenges into concrete, implementable solutions through structured peer exchange and technical support.

Cities at the Frontline: Climate Pressures and the Need for Nature-Based Solutions

Urban areas are increasingly where the impacts of climate change are most visible—and most intensely felt. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, cities and municipalities are facing a convergence of pressures: rapid urbanisation, environmental degradation, and growing exposure to climate risks such as flooding, drought, and heat stress. These pressures are not isolated; they interact in complex ways, amplifying vulnerabilities and placing strain on already limited infrastructure and institutional capacities.

At the same time, local governments are not passive actors. As highlighted in the opening of the workshop, they are at the forefront of both experiencing and addressing climate challenges.

Andreas Wolter, President of Climate Alliance and City Councilor of Cologne, emphasized the critical importance of ensuring that cities are actively represented in the global climate discourse, as municipalities are where climate impacts are most immediate and where solutions must ultimately be implemented.

Complementing this perspective, Dr. Nelson Maara, representing Nakuru County, highlighted the importance of preserving ecosystem services as a foundation for resilience, drawing on local experience to illustrate how the degradation of natural systems directly translates into increased urban vulnerability for climate-related risks.

Together, these perspectives reinforce a growing recognition that municipalities must play a stronger role in shaping climate action, as they are responsible for translating high-level commitments into practical, locally grounded solutions. In this context, Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) offer a critical pathway—enabling cities to address environmental, social, and economic challenges simultaneously through the restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems. However, while the relevance of NbS is increasingly acknowledged, the ability to move from concept to implementation remains a complex issue. This is where the Connective Cities learning process plays a critical role, equipping municipal practitioners with the technical capacities and knowledge required through structured exchange formats.

From Exchange to Implementation: The Role of the Learning Process

The learning process is built on the principle that cities and municipalities learn most effectively when they engage directly with one another on real, shared challenges. Rather than focusing on abstract knowledge transfer, it creates a structured space for practitioners to jointly analyse their challenges, exchange experiences, and progressively develop reform measures—concrete actions or project concepts that can be taken forward within their local contexts.

Additionally, another key component of the Learning Process methodology is to strengthen the capacities of urban practitioners to design, plan, and advance these measures within their institutional environments. The peer-to-peer approach is particularly important given the diversity of participating municipalities, bringing together different governance structures, capacities, and experiences while highlighting that many of the underlying challenges are fundamentally shared.

The learning process is therefore not about transferring solutions from one context to another, but about enabling cities to adapt and refine ideas through dialogue, ensuring that they are both context relevant and practically implementable.

From Framing to Practice: Expert Inputs and Panel Insights

Building on the broader objectives and structure of the learning process, the kick-off workshop in Naivasha marked the first step in translating this approach for peer learning into practice. Over the course of three days, participating cities and municipalities engaged in a structured exchange that combined expert inputs, panel discussions, and peer learning sessions, allowing them to ground NbS in their own urban realities.
The expert inputs provided the theoretical basis for the participants to better understand the importance of NbS for sustainable municipal development:

Prof. Johanes Belle introduced NbS through the lens of ecosystem services, highlighting how natural systems provide essential functions such as flood regulation, water purification, and climate moderation.

In addition to their core infrastructural functions, Nature-Based Solutions also generate co-benefits, including improvements in psychological well-being of local residents, increased soil quality, and opportunities for job creation. By framing NbS in terms of these services, Dr. Belle underscored that ecosystems should be understood as functional infrastructure, central to urban resilience rather than peripheral environmental assets.

For example, wetlands and urban green spaces can absorb excess stormwater, reducing flood risk while simultaneously improving water quality in rapidly growing urban areas. This perspective was particularly relevant for participating cities, many of which are experiencing the direct consequences of ecosystem degradation in the form of increased flood risk, declining water quality, and heightened climate vulnerability.

The input from Deputy Mayor William Wolfgramm, from the City of Cologne’s Climate Department demonstrated how such concepts of NbS can be translated into practice within a structured comprehensive planning framework by presenting the City of Cologne’s ‘urban green space masterplan’. Drawing on concrete examples, the presentation showed how NbS are embedded within long-term planning instruments and supported through institutional coordination, data-driven analysis, and dedicated funding mechanisms.

Measures such as de-sealing urban surfaces, expanding green corridors, and promoting green roofs and rainwater retention systems illustrated how NbS can be systematically implemented at scale when anchored in governance structures, through long-term planning processes and through taking a ‘whole-of-society’ approach.

The panel discussion further reinforced this shift from concept to application. Drawing on experiences from cities that had previously engaged in similar processes, panelists demonstrated through experiences from previous Connective Cities learning processes how initial ideas developed through peer exchange can evolve into tangible outputs—whether through feasibility studies, planning instruments, or pilot interventions. The discussion highlighted various concrete lessons:

• eThekwini (South Africa): Emphasised the importance of adopting an all-of-society approach to disaster risk management, bringing together local government departments, technical experts, and communities. Particular attention was given to strengthening communication channels with local populations and ensuring that NbS are embedded within long-term, city-wide programmes and institutional frameworks.
• Abelkuma, Accra (Ghana): Highlighted the importance of breaking down institutional ‘silos’ and ensuring coordination across departments in the development of foundational instruments such as urban greening guidelines and implementation plans. The intervention further underscored the need to strengthen technical detailing, local ownership, and financing pathways in order to move from concept to implementation.
• Berlin (Germany): Emphasised the importance of clearly scoping technical challenges, anchoring them within appropriate institutional frameworks, and establishing clear lines of accountability. They further highlighted how inclusive, participatory processes—bringing together multiple stakeholders, including local communities—can strengthen implementation, supported by robust control mechanisms such as data systems, continuous monitoring, and regulatory frameworks.
• Lusaka (Zambia): Emphasised the critical role of data collection and feasibility studies in advancing projects from concept to implementation. They highlighted the importance of partnerships in mobilising financing and noted the value of city networks in providing technical support and facilitating access to funding opportunities.

Commonly shared among the panelists was the insight, that while ideas often originate through exchange, their success depends on strong ownership —both in terms of institutional anchoring and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders— alongside the ability to translate concepts into structured an financeable interventions.

Cities in Dialogue: From Individual Challenges to Shared Patterns

With these insights in mind, the workshop moved into the peer learning phase, where participating cities and municipalities began to unpack their own challenges in greater detail. To facilitate focused exchange, participants were organised into five moderated working groups:

• Group 1: Babadjou (Cameroon), Méagui (Côte d’Ivoire), Natitingou (Benin), Commune de Nanga-Eboko (Cameroon)
• Group 2: Douala (Cameroon), Maputo (Mozambique), Huye (Rwanda), Cape Coast (Ghana)
• Group 3: Tanga City (Tanzania), Köln (Germany), Mazabuka (Zambia), Ilemela (Tanzania)
• Group 4: Embu (Kenya), Nakuru (Kenya), Mwanza (Tanzania), Tarkwa-Nsuaem (Ghana)
• Group 5: Bosaso (Somalia), Sinda Town Council (Zambia), Kimberley (South Africa), Berlin (Germany)

Within these groups, municipalities presented their challenges, received peer feedback, and began refining possible directions for action. While the discussions initially reflected diverse local contexts, a clear pattern of shared challenges quickly emerged.

Across the groups, municipalities repeatedly highlighted issues related to ecosystem degradation, water management, waste systems, and rapid urbanisation. These challenges were often closely interconnected. For instance, inadequate waste management was identified as a key contributor to flooding, as blocked drainage systems exacerbate water accumulation during heavy rainfall. Similarly, unplanned urban expansion into wetlands and riverbanks was found to increase exposure to climate risks.This reinforced the understanding that urban challenges are not isolated, but rather systemic in nature, requiring integrated responses that address environmental, institutional, and social dimensions simultaneously.

As discussions progressed, cities began to move beyond describing their challenges and toward identifying more structured pathways forward.

From Challenges to Action: Peer Recommendations and Emerging Directions

Through structured peer exchange, participants worked to refine and prioritize potential solutions. Rather than introducing entirely new ideas, this process helped cities to clarify the thoughts broad to the workshop and translate broad concepts into more concrete directions.

Key recommendations emerging from the discussions included the need to strengthen the evidence base for planning, through baseline studies, risk assessments, and feasibility analyses. Cities were also encouraged to integrate NbS within urban planning and governance frameworks, ensuring that interventions are embedded within long-term strategies rather than implemented as isolated projects.

Another strong theme was the importance of community engagement and behavioral change, particularly in areas such as waste management and environmental protection. Many cities recognised that technical solutions alone would not be sufficient without local ownership and awareness building measures.

Finally, there was a clear emphasis on the need to move toward structured project development, including cost-benefit analysis, clearer project definition, and preparation for financing.

From Ideas to Implementation: What Comes Next

While the initial phases of the workshop focused on understanding challenges and identifying potential solutions, time was also dedicated to looking ahead within the year-long learning process. The emphasis shifted towards how these ideas can be further developed into implementable and financeable interventions.

To support this, inputs were provided by the City Climate Finance Gap Fund and the Covenant of Mayors in Sub-Saharan Africa (CoM SSA). Both initiatives outlined their approaches to supporting cities in developing climate projects, including their selection criteria, support mechanisms, and application processes. Emphasis was placed on the importance of strong technical preparation, clear project scope, and alignment with climate and development priorities.

These inputs directly responded to the needs expressed by cities, particularly in relation to moving beyond early-stage ideas and accessing financing. Building on this, the workshop concluded with a forward-looking exercise in which cities presented initial concepts for reform measures, beginning to articulate more concrete project ideas and potential pathways for implementation.

Closing Reflection

What the workshop demonstrated is that cities are not lacking solutions. Across contexts, there is already a strong foundation of ideas, experiences, and emerging practices. The key challenge lies in structuring these ideas, strengthening the enabling environment, and advancing them toward implementation.

The Connective Cities learning process provides a platform to do exactly that—turning exchange into collaboration, and collaboration into tangible action.