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

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