Floods, urban planning and multi-level governance in Coastal West Africa The case of Saint-Louis

1. Floods, urban planning and multi-level governance in Coastal West AfricaThe case of Saint-Louis T. Vedeld, M. Ndour, A. Coly, S. Hellevik NFU Annual Conference, 26-27 November, 2012 Trond Vedeld Senior development researcher

2. Overview of presentation • Basic approach and assumptions • Exposure & vulnerability • Structureofneighbourhood Councils (quartier) • Empiricalfindingsoncitizens’actions in DRM • Structureof urban governance - roleofkeyactors • Empiricalfindingsongovernance, planning, DRM/CCA • Implications for policy and theory TrondVedeld

3. Basic approach • To explaindivision of responsibility for DRM & CCA between state and municipality and how various policy instruments are applied i) Institutional (coordination, decentralisedorganisation, accountability, pluralisation, participation) ii) Legal/regulative iii) Finance iv) Informative/knowledge • Key attention to the roleofmunicipality and twolocal case-Councils on i) flash floods & ii) coastalflooding/erosion

4. Multi-level analysis of urban governance and DRM/CCA • Analyse interface between urban governance/planning system and flood risks and vulnerability (national, city, local) • Multi-level and multi-organisational – interplay of state and non-state actors • Useful with governance approach (= steering of public arenas/society) • State centric approach Trond Vedeld

5. Assumption & methods • Assumption • Opportunities for improved DRM & CCA lie in integration at lower levels (municipality and below) • Finds support in different theory strains • Methods • Semi-structuredinterviews, observationsoflocalpractices by local students, reviewsofpolicies/laws, plans, literature Trond Vedeld

6. Saint Louis, Senegal • 200 000 people • 300 mm/year • Exremelylowlying settlements • Flash floods – river floods • 80 000 peopleaffected in 2010 floods

7. Saint Louis, Senegal Coastal & riverine city Located on four low-lying islands – former wetlands

8. Exposed, vulnerable citizenswithsomelocalresponsecapacity • Exposedinformal settlements due to rapid urbanization (3% growth, 30% in informal areas) • Vulnerability (lackof storm drains, sewerage, solid waste, green space, infrastructure) • Poor and vulnerable citizens (assets, livelihoods) • Butorganized, proactive and engagedcivilsociety

9. The neighbourhood Council (Conseill de Quartier) • Elected local Council with representation from the following (but not legalized); • Youth Sport and Cultural Associations • Women/female youth group • Teacher-Parents group • Health and sanitation committee • Relgious groups • Economic interest groups • Neighborhood development associations Cluva Saint-Louis

10. Findings: Citizens’ DRM actions • Protect own houses and assets; aware of flood risks • Involved in local development planning • Design projects on climate risk reduction • Advocate for assistance from above • Organized young people and raised local awareness • Helped organize training of teachers on CCA • Mobilized for new road & storm drains • But lacks legitimacy and finance Guy Weets

11. Niveau communautaire Niveau déconcentré Niveau décentralisé Levels of governance in Saint-Louis Gouverneur régional Comité Régional de développement Maire Préfet Services techniques Services technmunicip Agence de développement communale Niveau municipal Conseil Municipal Délégué Président Conseil Conseil de quartiers Source, COLY A., NDOUR M., GUEYE S., in press Niveau quartier Association sportives et culturelles Cluva Saint-Louis Comité, commission Organisation communautaire de base

12. Multi-levelgovernanceofflood risks • Central and regional stateagencies– coordinate at national and regional levels, finance, land use planning + river floodcontrol, stormwater, disasterresponse • Municipality - urban development planning (not land use), green structures, solid waste and post-disasterrecovery • Private sector - water supply and protectionof water infrastructure, housing, construction • NGOs - Red Cross • Citizens/localgroups- protectionofassets, earlyevacuation, cleaningofdrains, solid waste, ecosystemmngmt/destruction Trond Vedeld

13. Multi-levelactors in urban planning/governance and DRM/CCA Trond Vedeld

14. Findings on governance and planning • Municipality not ”in charge” – undermines autonomy and accountability • Urban plans with limited integration of CCA/DRM • No planning design principles • Weak land control and enforcement • Weakinvolvementof non-stateactors • Limited links between DRM and CCA • CCA more of a national concern than DRM Trond Vedeld

15. Findings on governance & floods risk management • No real institutional homewithmunicipality • Lackrepresentation at higherlevels • Weak regional government; strong regional state services (Governor) • Overlaps and unclearitybetweenmunicipality/state • Weak lines ofcommand (vertical/horizontal) • No EWS and weak emergency management Trond Vedeld

16. Strongerintegration of DRM/CCA in governance - requires • Createinstitutionalhomes + financial support • Establishcoordination&operationalintegration • Shifttowards long-term DRM/CCA • Addressinequality/informality and buildlocal political capacity and accountabilities Trond Vedeld

17. Support oftheory – findings support • Urban DRM/CCA theory; floodrisks spill acrossjudicial, administrative and socio-ecologicalboundaries • Ostrom and Oakersononpolycentricgovernance • James Manor’sworkondecentralisation • Richard Crook’sworkon sivil service; «islandsofeffectiveness» • Judith Tendler’swork from Brazil; state services canbuildaccountability TrondVedeld