Transcript Assessing tools & implementation of the campaign “Making Cities

Assessing tools & implementation of the
campaign “Making Cities Resilient”
KURT PETERSEN & PETER MÅNSSON
LUCRAM (LUND UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT)
Background and rationale of studies
• MCR Campaign widely known and highly relevant
• Ongoing and not yet subjected to (scarce) external or
scientific reviews or evaluations
• 4 Swedish cities enrolled and keen interest from the
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
Purpose & aims
• Evaluate the tools produced by UNISDR within the
campaign (substance: how is resilience defined,
alignement with proposed activities and how holistic is the
approach)
• Explore implementation of city-to-city exchanges:
matching process, challenges and coherence with the
”Rights based Approach”
• Purpose: to identify measures to enhance the tools &
implementation of the Making Cities Resilient Campaign
Research questions (thesis 1)
• Do UNISDR’s tools comprise the elements that LUCRAM
maintains are essential for resilient DRM-systems?
• How do UNISDR and LUCRAM define the concept of
resilience and are their perceptions reflected in their tools
and methods?
• What do Karlstad and Kristianstad think about the
campaign? Has the campaign helped them in their work
with disaster risk reduction and if so, how?
Research questions (thesis 2)
• Which criteria do UNISDR use to match cities together?
• What does the matching-process look like?
• Which challenges do the cities experience and which
factors are conducive for a successful city-to-city
partnership?
• Are the implementation processes consistent with the
rights based approach?
Methodologies & sources
• Document studies (scientific + ”grey” literature)
• Studied ”tools”:
- Ten essentials (backbone)
- Handbook for Local Government Leaders
- Local Government Self-Assessment Tool (LG-SAT)
- Report 2012
- Homepage
• Interviews (purposeful selection)
LUCRAM: a generic framework for
assessing DRM-systems
Questionnaire - Important underpinning
factors for resilience
 Legal and
institutional
framework
 System of
organisations
 Organisation
 Resources
Rights Based Approach (RBA)
• UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human
Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation
and Programming (2003)
• Human rights are starting point for the planning and
implementation of activities
• Right-holders and duty bearers
• Development work to be based on certain principles:
- Empowerment
- Participation
- Non-discrimination
- Accountability
See more at: http://hrbaportal.org/the-un-and-hrba
Results: holistic/systemic approach
• Differences in ”system-approach”, but tools cover most of
what LUCRAM finds essential for holistic disaster risk
management systems
• Campaign does not address the function ”Impact
assessment” and ”forecasting” is not explicitly mentioned
as a worthwhile capability.
Correspondence between UNISDRtools and LUCRAM framework
Results: interdependencies between
essentials
• Interdependencies between essentials are only implied,
but not described/explained in tools
• Essentials 1-3 are fundamental and supportive of other
essentials
Results: interdependencies between
essentials
Essentials 1-3 are
fundamental and
supportive of other
essentials
Results: monitoring
• Differences with regards to monitoring and indicators
Rationale for using the LG-SAT
Using the Local Government Self-Assessment Tool will
help to set baselines, identify gaps, plan actions and have
comparable data across local governments, within the
country and globally, to measure advancements over time
Results: role model cities
• Karlstad and Kristianstad are
positive to the campaign.
None of the cities, however,
utilize the tools of the
campaign in their ordinary
DRR-work.
• Highlights the value of
networks, exchange of
knowledge and good publicity
(!)
• Exchanges with UK, Czech
Republic, Austria, Italy (risk
assessments + flood
preparedness)
KARLSTAD
KRISTIANSTAD
Results: role model cities
JOKKMOKK
• Karlstad and Kristianstad are
positive to the campaign.
None of the cities, however,
utilize the tools of the
campaign in their ordinary
DRR-work.
• Highlights the value of
networks, exchange of
knowledge and good publicity
(!)
• Exchanges with UK, Czech
Republic, Austria, Italy (risk
assessments + flood
preparedness)
ARVIKA
KARLSTAD
GOTHEBURG
JÖNKÖPING
VÄLLINGE
MALMÖ
KRISTIANSTAD
Results: concept of resilience
• UNISDR’s definition of resilience ”lacks”/hides the
element of learning and should stress re-establishing
functions rather than forms.
UNISDR definition of ”Resilience”
The ability of a system, community or society exposed to
hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover
from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient
manner, including through the preservation and restoration
of its essential basic structures and functions.
Added comment:
Resilience means the ability to “resile from” or “spring back
from” a shock.The resilience of a community in respect to
potential hazard events is determined by the degree to
which the community has the necessary resources and is
capable of organizing itself both prior to and during times
of need.
Effects of learning
Results: city-to-city exchanges
• The campaign does not have a unified strategy on how to
initiate partnerships
• The campaign does not explicitly state that RBA should
be used, nor were interviewed cities familiar with the
approach.
• Nonetheless, implementation in the analysis compliant
with RBA!
• Factors for successful partnerships:
- Knowledge about the local context
- Clear objectives and expectations
- Participatory approaches
- Interest and will to commit and contribute
Compiled recommendations
• The concept of ”Community resilience” needs to be
clearly communicated (understood) and the tools of the
campaign need to be aligned with this.
• Interdependencies between essentials need to be
clarified in tools
• Issue advice on coherent order for implementing the ten
essentials (i.e. essentials 1-3 as fundamental and
supportive of other essentials and should therefore be
implemented/addressed before attending to other
essentials)
• Develop LG-SAT (comparability across actors and over
time requires transparent motivations)
Recommendations (cont.)
• Recommend that LG-SAT is performed early in the
implementation process (as part of essential three) to:
- further motivate leadership engagement (through gap
analysis) and
- provide baseline-data in order to assess achievements
• Recommend that the cities’ project objectives are designed
in line with the SMART-criteria
• The campaign does not need to have a strategy to initiate
partnerships, but develop a database to enhance
possibilities for cities to find relevant partners.
• Develop ”ten essentials for implementation” of campaign
objectives, incorporating recommendations on:
- order of essentials (based on interdependencies)
- values/approaches for development cooperation aligned
with UN-standards
Inform about suitable principles
• Learn about the local context and build “trust”
• Systemic approach (all levels: individuals, organizations
and the wider society)
• Sustainability through:
- Building on existing capacities, structures, technology (do not build
in new dependencies)
- Local ownership & participatory approaches (identification,
implementation & monitoring)
- Engaged leadership (+ identify and seek alliances with
“champions”)
- Exit strategies
Inform about suitable principles (cont.)
• Mix of activities (different levels, short/long-term,
soft/hard)
• Transparency (to stakeholders and between partners)
• Monitoring, evaluation and learning (objectives and
process: baseline, indicators, responsibility)
Suggested documents for crafting ”ten
essentials” for implementing city-to-city
exchanges
• OECD (2005). Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness:
ownership, harmonization, alignment, results and mutual
accountability & Accra Agenda for Action (2008)
• UNISDR (2007): Words Into Action: A Guide for
Implementing the Hyogo Framework
• UNISDR (2004): Living with Risk: A Global Review of
Disaster Reduction Initiatives
• UNDP (2004). Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for
Development
• UNDP (2009). Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer.
• UNDP (2009). Supporting Capacity Development – the
UNDP Approach
Suggested docs (cont.)
• UNDP (2008) Capacity Development Practice Note.
• DAC (2006). The challenge of capacity development –
working towards good practice. OECD/Development
Assistance Committee.
• CADRI: Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster
Risk Reduction