1 / 27

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

amable
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Assessing tools & implementation of the campaign “Making Cities Resilient” Kurt petersen & Peter Månsson LUCRAM (Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment & Management)

  2. Background and rationale of studies • MCR Campaign widelyknown and highlyrelevant • Ongoing and not yetsubjectedto (scarce) external or scientificreviews or evaluations • 4 Swedish cities enrolled and keeninterest from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)

  3. Purpose & aims • Evaluate the toolsproduced by UNISDR within the campaign (substance: how is resiliencedefined, alignementwithproposedactivities and howholistic is the approach) • Explore implementation of city-to-city exchanges: matching process, challenges and coherencewith the ”Rightsbased Approach” • Purpose: toidentifymeasurestoenhance the tools & implementation of the MakingCitiesResilient Campaign

  4. 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?

  5. 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?

  6. Methodologies & sources • Document studies (scientific + ”grey” literature) • Studied ”tools”: • Ten essentials (backbone) • Handbook for LocalGovernmentLeaders • LocalGovernment Self-AssessmentTool (LG-SAT) • Report 2012 • Homepage • Interviews (purposeful selection)

  7. LUCRAM: a genericframework for assessing DRM-systems

  8. Questionnaire - Important underpinning factors for resilience • Legal and institutional framework • System of organisations • Organisation • Resources

  9. RightsBased Approach (RBA) • UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation and Programming (2003) • Human rightsare starting point for the planning and implementation ofactivities • Right-holders and dutybearers • Developmentworkto be based on certain principles: • Empowerment • Participation • Non-discrimination • Accountability See more at: http://hrbaportal.org/the-un-and-hrba

  10. Results: holistic/systemic approach • Differences in ”system-approach”, buttools cover mostofwhat LUCRAMfindsessential for holistic disaster risk management systems • Campaign does not address the function ”Impactassessment” and ”forecasting” is not explicitlymentioned as a worthwhilecapability.

  11. Correspondencebetween UNISDR- tools and LUCRAM framework

  12. Results: interdependenciesbetweenessentials • Interdependenciesbetweenessentialsareonlyimplied, but not described/explained in tools • Essentials 1-3 are fundamental and supportiveofotheressentials

  13. Results: interdependenciesbetweenessentials Essentials 1-3 are fundamental and supportiveofother essentials

  14. Results: monitoring • Differenceswithregardstomonitoring and indicators

  15. Rationale for using the LG-SAT Using the LocalGovernment Self-AssessmentToolwillhelpto set baselines, identify gaps, plan actions and havecomparable data acrosslocalgovernments, within the country and globally, tomeasureadvancementsover time

  16. Results: rolemodelcities • Karlstad and Kristianstad are positive to the campaign. Noneof the cities, however, utilize the toolsof the campaign in theirordinary DRR-work. • Highlights the valueofnetworks, exchangeofknowledge and goodpublicity (!) • Exchanges with UK, CzechRepublic, Austria, Italy (risk assessments + floodpreparedness) KARLSTAD KRISTIANSTAD

  17. Results: rolemodelcities JOKKMOKK • Karlstad and Kristianstad are positive to the campaign. Noneof the cities, however, utilize the toolsof the campaign in theirordinary DRR-work. • Highlights the valueofnetworks, exchangeofknowledge and goodpublicity (!) • Exchanges with UK, CzechRepublic, Austria, Italy (risk assessments + floodpreparedness) ARVIKA KARLSTAD GOTHEBURG JÖNKÖPING KRISTIANSTAD VÄLLINGE MALMÖ

  18. Results: conceptofresilience • UNISDR’s definition ofresilience ”lacks”/hides the element oflearning and should stress re-establishingfunctionsratherthan forms.

  19. UNISDR definition of ”Resilience” The abilityof a system, community or societyexposedtohazardstoresist, absorb, accommodateto and recoverfrom the effectsof a hazard in a timely and efficientmanner, includingthrough the preservation and restoration ofitsessentialbasicstructures and functions. Addedcomment: Resiliencemeans the abilityto “resile from” or “spring back from” a shock.Theresilienceof a community in respectto potential hazard events is determined by the degreetowhich the community has the necessaryresources and is capableoforganizingitselfboth prior to and duringtimesofneed.

  20. Effectsoflearning

  21. Results: city-to-city exchanges • The campaigndoes not have a unifiedstrategy on howtoinitiate partnerships • The campaigndoes not explicitlystatethat RBA should be used, nor wereinterviewedcitiesfamiliarwith the approach. • Nonetheless, implementation in the analysiscompliantwith RBA! • Factors for successful partnerships: • Knowledgeabout the localcontext • Clear objectives and expectations • Participatoryapproaches • Interest and willtocommit and contribute

  22. Compiledrecommendations • The conceptof ”Community resilience” needsto be clearlycommunicated (understood) and the toolsof the campaignneedto be alignedwiththis. • Interdependenciesbetweenessentialsneedto be clarified in tools • Issueadvice on coherent order for implementing the ten essentials (i.e. essentials 1-3 as fundamental and supportiveofotheressentialsand shouldtherefore be implemented/addressedbeforeattendingtootheressentials) • Develop LG-SAT (comparabilityacrossactors and over timerequirestransparent motivations)

  23. Recommendations (cont.) • Recommendthat LG-SAT is performedearly in the implementation process (as part ofessentialthree) to: • furthermotivateleadership engagement (through gap analysis) and • providebaseline-data in order toassessachievements • Recommendthat the cities’ projectobjectivesare designed in linewith the SMART-criteria • The campaigndoes not needtohave a strategytoinitiate partnerships, butdevelop a databasetoenhancepossibilities for citiestofind relevant partners. • Develop ”ten essentials for implementation” ofcampaignobjectives, incorporatingrecommendations on: - order ofessentials (based on interdependencies) - values/approaches for developmentcooperationalignedwith UN-standards

  24. Informaboutsuitable principles • Learn about the local context and build “trust” • Systemic approach (all levels: individuals, organizations and the wider society) • Sustainabilitythrough: • 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

  25. Informaboutsuitable principles (cont.) • Mix of activities (different levels, short/long-term, soft/hard) • Transparency (to stakeholders and between partners) • Monitoring, evaluation and learning (objectivesand process: baseline, indicators, responsibility)

  26. 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

  27. 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

More Related