Assessing tools & implementation of the campaign “Making Cities Resilient”

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 UNISDR- tools 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)

KRISTIANSTAD

KARLSTAD

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)

ARVIKA

KRISTIANSTAD

GOTHEBURGJÖNKÖPING

MALMÖ

KARLSTAD

VÄLLINGE

JOKKMOKK

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