robust-cities by Abhimanyu Singhal

July 2011

Robust Cities: Building Resilience into  Urban Infrastructure Investment in East  Asia and Pacific   A Primer for Task Managers :  A Primer for Task Managers

Submitted for review  to   The World Bank  by   IMC Worldwide Ltd (IMC)

Consultant of the Year award 2010, UK ACE (Association of Consultancy and Engineering) Best Relief and Development Project Award 2010, UK APM

List of Contents Preface Executive Summary 1.

Mainstreaming resilience in urban infrastructure investment projects: a process of assurance

Natural hazard risk and the importance of mainstreaming resilience into urban investment projects in East Asia and Pacific

Urban management and governance

Participation and community-led strategies

Urban planning for resilience

Environmental planning for urban resilience

Structural design issues

Risk data, data visualization and models

List of Figures, Boxes and Tables List of Figures 1.1 World Bank Project Management Cycle 1.2 City context for mainstreaming resilience in urban investment projects 1.3 Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) 1.3: National landscape of international public finance in Indonesia 2.1 Regional Hazards Map 2.2 East Asia and Pacific Region 2.3 East Asia and Pacific: Percent of population in urban areas by country 2.4 Map of index of climate change vulnerability in South East Asia 2.5 Vulnerability of population of major port cities to climate change impacts by 2070 2.6 Economic assets of major port cities exposed to climate change impacts by 2070 2.7 Urban populations exposure to cyclone and earthquake: now and in 2050 2.8 Cities as human ecosystems 2.9 Risk Triangle 2.10 Classification of disaster losses 2.11 Australia and New Zealand Standard Risk Management Framework (risk management standard AS/NZS 4360:2004) 2.12 Standard risk assessment model (applies across the scales) 2.13 Mapping risk against probability and consequence 2.14 Urban risk/resilience spiral: a dynamic framework for pubiic policy at the national, sub-national and city level 2.15 Resilience can be a positive vector in urban investment

4.1 Community Asset Management: increasing community empowerment 4.2 A route from participation to partnership 4.3 Matrix for assessing stakeholder involvement, impact and risk 4.4 Different mapping techniques for gathering of information and to facilitate understanding of issues in Leogane in Haiti and photographic profile of a village Banda Aceh, Indonesia 4.5 Building a 3D scale model of the neighborhood with participation of the community in Lombok, Indonesia 4.6 Examples of multi hazard maps for risk assessment and analysis produced with participation of villagers after the tsunami in Banda Aceh 6.1 Ecosystem-based hazard risk reduction 7.1 The nine ’golden rules’ of good flood risk management 7.2 A structured framework of whole system thinking based on understanding the sources, pathways and receptors of risk 7.3 Dimensions for describing infrastructure interdependencies  7.4 Uncertainty increases with time reflecting the potential future change including climate, demographics, societal preferences, structure condition 7.5 Numerous public and administrative buildings collapsed following the earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti in 200 making co-ordination of the recovery effort extremely difficult 7.6 Castlemead power distribution station is inundated, UK 27th August 2010 causing extensive power outage 7.7 A range of structural measures and how they build resilience (in the case of urban floods 7.8 The expected annual damages attributed to individual defense assets with an asset system (as well as spatially within the floodplain) enable critical components to be quickly highlighted and actions targeted. 7.9 A qualitative model for depicting the linked relationships between hazards and their ultimate outcomes 8.1 An example of flood hazard mapping in the UK showing Environment Agency maps for part of London 8.2 Potential flood risk for the south and south-eastern states of Brazil 8.3 Rainfall shown in inches over north east England 13-15th October 1892

List of Boxes 1.1 Some hazard risk-related definitions from United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) 1.2 Potential urban resilience performance indicators 1.3 Nationwide geo-spatial mapping of local hazards and vulnerability 1.4 World Bank Project Preparation 1.5 Learning from disasters – impacts on public policy 1.6 Climate change adaptation planning in New York and Chicago 1.7 Flood risk mapping in Jakarta 1.8 Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community 1.9 Some ‘golden rules’ for investing in urban infrastructure 1.10 Multipurpose infrastructure: Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) 1.11 Adaptation funding and the principle of additionally 1.12 Current and future international public climate change mitigation finance flows in Indonesia 1.13 Climate change adaptation and mitigation funds and access for developing countries and their limitations 1.14 Solo, Indonesia – Involving communities in relocation of riverbank settlement, creation of urban forest and improved citywide sanitation 2.1 Vulnerability of the East Asia and Pacific Region 2.2 Vulnerability of coastal cities 2.3 The knock on effects environmental and economic impacts of recent earthquakes – Japan and New Zealand 2.4 Risk assessment model 2.5 Robust decision making (RDM): Relevant in stages of risk assessment and infrastructure strategy 2.6 The World Bank’s post-tsunami recovery strategy for Aceh, Indonesia

2.7 Using climate forecasting to predict impacts at the city level 3.1 Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience for a Changing World 3.2 Norms and indicators of ‘good’ urban governance 3.3 Constraints on implementing disaster risk reduction (DRR) at the local level 3.4 Managing urban risk and governing for resilience – summary of principles 3.5 The basis of effective collaboration 3.6 CALFED – an adaptive management and collaborative governance approach to California’s water planning and management 3.7 Summary of principles of collaborative governance for risk reduction and resilience 3.8 Emerging governance of Greater Manchester 3.9 China’s systems of city clusters 3.10 Decentralized co-operation through global city networks: C40 3.11 Decentralized co-operation through regional city networks: Eco 3.12 Two Approaches to reducing disaster risks in the built environment 3.13 Terminology on regulatory frameworks for building 3.14 Some recommendations on making buildings safe in developing countries 3.15 An example of urban disaster risk reduction: the case of Istanbul 3.16 Real-time flood information and web services in King County, Washington State 3.17 How international development agencies can support networking for risk reduction 4.1 The role of the media following the 2010 Haiti and Chile earthquakes 4.2 STEP-UP – a business sector-civil society alliance for urban poverty reduction in Metro Manila 4.3 Ahmedabad Slum Networking Project (ASMP): community participation for infrastructure finance 4.4 Summary of key principles for implementing participation in infrastructure investment in urban resilience 4.5 School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP), Nepal 4.6 San Isidro Resettlement Project, Ilo-Ilo, Philippines 4.7 Adapting to climate change – good practice in DRR in Albay Province, Philippines 4.8 Chain of communication 4.9 Indonesia: Early warning system takes shape in Aceh 4.10 Strengthening community resilience to flood and drought in Cambodia 4.11 Stakeholder identification 4.12 Final stage of stakeholder analysis 4.13 Key activities for vulnerability assessment in Sorsogon, Phlippines 4.14 Communicating risk and responses through children’s theatre in the Rizal, the Philippines 4.15 Examples of methodologies for CBDRM planning 5.1 Distinguishing between different types of planning 5.2 Strategic Plan for National Spatial Development in Taiwan 5.3 Managing urban and city regional land development for resilience: basic principles 5.4 Statute of the City: How Brazil addressed the issue of spatial inequality from the top down and bottom up 5.5 Principles of collaborative and good governance in urban planning 5.6 Finance and partnership for resilient urban development 5.7 Tucunduba case study, Belem: a participatory approach to flood management in Brazil 5.8 Successful resettlement in Brasilia 5.9 High rise housing in Singapore 5.10 Flood management and resettlement policy issues in Jakarta 5.11 Planning tools for reinforcing social capital and resilience 5.12 Good practiced in resettlement policy and housing for the urban poor 5.13 Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London 5.14 Spatial development framework aims to reduce risk for a city in Nigeria 5.15 Fifteen steps to producing and implementing a physical plan 5.16 Outcomes of a risk reduction plan 5.17 Disaster Risk Management Master Plan for Kathmandu 5.18 Vertical evacuation structures in Padang, Sumatra 5.19 Post-tsunami reconstruction master plan for risk reduction – good practice from Constitución, Chile 5.20: Retrofitting critical facilities in Istanbul

6.1 Principles for good practice in environmental planning for urban resilience 6.2 Urbanization, ecosystem degradation and flooding, Vietnam 6.3 Ecosystem change and landslides in the Nilgiris District, India 6.4 Impacts of the Fiji floods on the poor 6.5 Restoring mangroves through community-based management in Thailand 6.6 London’s green grid 6.7 Seattle: Using vegetation to limit the hazard of landslides 6.8 Leveraging the landscape to manage water 6.9 Sustainable urban drainage, environmental management and public health 6.10 Flood management and sustainable urban drainage in Seoul 6.11 Curitiba – pioneering developing world green and sustainable city 6.12 Urban park restoration, ecosystem services and flood risk reduction, London, UK 6.13 Master plan to counter degradation of coastal wetlands in Sri Lanka 6.14 Economic benefits of That Luang Marsh, PDR Laos 6.15 The economic benefits of restoring the Mississippi River Delta 7.1 Emerging guidance – USA Disaster Resilient Design Expert Group 7.2 Traditional versus risk based design 7.3 The challenges of tsunami early warning systems in Japan 7.4 Taihu Basin, China – Foresight Project: understanding the whole system and multiple hazards 7.5 Development control policy in Cape Town, South Africa 7.6 Urban seismic hazard maps: a response to recent damaging earthquakes 7.7 Linking engineering and natural infrastructure, New Orleans, Louisiana 7.8 Local small scale actions form a valid part of a resilience response 7.9 Use of dual purpose safe havens in Bangladesh 7.10 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Nicaragua – successful CDR project built social capital 7.11 Incorporating climate change into decision-making – Thames Estuary 2100: an initial application of adaptive decision-making 8.1 Cairns, Australia 8.2 Disaster Management information System in Maharashtra State, India 8.3 Case study: Flood risk mapping in Brazil 8.4 Common internet based resources 8.5 Flooding of Hull, UK – use of historical hazard event data 8.6 Case study: Turrialba, Costa Rica 8.7 Queensland 8.8 Taiwan 8.9 Getting a viable market through regional insurance – some policy recommendations  8.10 Insurance and financing of disaster management in Istanbul

List of Tables 1.1 Urban investment project typology in East Asia Pacific 1.2 Project checklist for task managers 1.3 Example of policy matrix for resilience policy entry-points for the Philippines 1.4 Steps in understanding the city level governance context 1.5 Steps in risk assessment 1.6 Steps in operationalizing investment strategy 1.7 Donor-supported funding instruments for climate change mitigation in Indonesia 2.1 Numbers and percent of people living in slums in EAP Region by country  2.2 Countries at risk from climate change effects 2.3 Classification of natural hazards and related ecosystems 2.4 Typology of cities at risk form natural hazards 2.5 Human-Natural risk continuum 2.6 Rapid onset, slow onset and long fuse hazards 2.7 Urban resilience policy framework 3.1 Spatial planning units and their typical institutional frameworks 3.2 Institutional analysis framework 3.3 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy

makers 3.4 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist 4.1 Levels of stakeholder and community involvement 4.2 Preliminary analysis of key stakeholder characteristics 4.3 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers 4.4 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist 5.1 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers 5.2 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist 6.1 Relative importance of wetland types for natural hazard regulation 6.2 Five steps to implementing the Ecosystem Approach 6.3 Ecosystem regulating services 6.4 Ecosystem services provided by coral reefs and mangroves 6.5 Tiered approach advocated by TEEB 6.6 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers 6.7 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist 7.1 The recognition of uncertainty and its impact on strategy development – replacing a linear development model with an adaptive model of strategy 7.2 The change in design paradigm towards risk informed resilience design 7.3 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers 7.4 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist 8.1 Risk Data in the project cycle

List of Appendices 1.1 Outline terms of reference for mainstreaming urban resilience in an urban infrastructure project 2.1 Adapting the ADB’s Draft Risk Screening Tool to the urban reliance context

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Preface ʻCities in East Asia absorb 2 million new urban residents every month and are projected to triple their built-up areas in the coming two decades. (This) implies that exposure is increasing and could translate into heavy loss of life and property unless proactive measures are mainstreamed into urban planning processes. These losses may be particularly high in densely populated peri-urban and informal settlements, whose residents live on marginal lands in poorly constructed shelters and lack the financial resources to cope with the loss of property. In the coming decades, policymakers in the region will need to balance and trade-off infrastructure service provision (access and quality), existing disaster and climate risks and incremental risks from climate change.1 Many of cities of East Asia are prone to multiple-hazards (including climate change) putting their populations, assets, economies and environment at risk of heavy loss. These cities face major challenges in maintaining a safe habitable environment for their growing populations, maintaining an investor and business-friendly infrastructure and ensuring environmentally sustainable growth (reduced greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste). It is not just that urbanization is very rapid but much of it is unplanned, precarious, poorly constructed and inhabited by the urban poor. According to the UN2, in 2010, an estimated 189 million people in Eastern and 90 million in South Eastern Asia lived in slums (out of a total estimate population of 959 million). This ‘planning deficit’ has major risk implications for the poor. The guide demonstrates how they are disproportionately settled in the most hazardous locations of the city (including peri-urban areas). While the proportion of the urban population living in slums is estimated to have fallen across the region, absolute numbers have increased (notably in the South East Asia countries) and with it the risks to growing numbers of urban poor. The guide draws on current thinking in risk assessment, disaster management and climate change adaptation. Drawing on case-studies, stakeholder discussion and practical experience, it sets out the measures that can result in cost-effective infrastructure and deliver its designed benefit without falling prey to any of the multiple hazards that affect East Asian urban areas. Infrastructure so-designed will ensure that the growth requirements of the city are met with minimum consumption of natural resources and provide safe and productive environments for people and businesses. The operational guide will elaborate on the many entry-points for investment to be made ‘resilient’. This guides: •

Describes general principles of urban resilience and how to achieve them in project design and implementation plan including policy considerations;

•

Reviews available tools, best practices, indicators, data requirements, and possible data sources; costs and benefits of various approaches and risks and how to mitigate them;

•

Provide detailed step-by-step instructions for initiating, conducting and including resilience considerations in identified urban investment projects.

Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) ‘Building Urban Resilience in East Asia’, An Eye on East Asia and Pacific No 8, Economic Management and Poverty Reduction, World Bank 2 UN Human Settlements Programme (2008) State of the World Cities 2010/11: Bridging the Urban Divide Nairobi: UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT),

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

How to use the guide: This guide has been designed primarily for use by task team managers and other members of task teams. However, their counterparts in Borrower governments, as well as city leader and officials are likely to make use of it, as are any outside exerts commissioned to undertake urban resilience related studies. The first two chapters provide the basic concepts and methodologies that everyone concerned with mainstreaming urban resilience will need to become familiar with. Subsequent chapters add principles and notes on good practice in the areas of specialist knowledge that will employed in the process and the technical expertise in that field that the task manager will need to engage during in considering the resilience of infrastructure investments. At the end of each â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;technicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; chapter there are two checklists, one for policy makers at national and city level, the other concerned with project design, that summarize the principles of good practice set out in the chapters and the questioned that need to be asked. Key to boxes: Background issues, general commentary Policy, actions, principles Examples, case studies Tools, instruments, definitions Structure of the Guide:

!:;<,

C"10"(8")091.), 1"$%*D%, !:;>,

!:;?,

!:;=,

!"#$%&'()*+*), ,#&-.$,&*/0)0*$1*,/%&.%*2',

!0%'()*+*),, #&-.$,&*/0)0*$1*,/%&.%*2',

!:;F,

E*/02$, *D8*&9/*, !:;@,

!:;A,

!:;B,

3&"4*1%,)*+*), 5*/02$,6,078)*7*$%.9"$,

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

Executive summary The cities of East Asia and Pacific have always had to live with the threat of natural hazards. With rapid urbanization and climate change, however, the need to confront and plan for the associated risk to human lives and property has become urgent. The region has accumulated the greatest concentration of urban population and assets on earth, to a large extent concentrated in coastal areas exposed to storms, tsunamis and sea level rise, in river flood plains, and in some of the most active seismic zones in the world. Many places face multiple hazards and, as the recent tsunami in North East Japan so amply demonstrated, human ‘systemic’ factors lead to reverberating and cascading impacts. ‘Urban resilience’ is convenient shorthand for crystallizing these concerns. It is a term that is at once seemingly familiar but with profound connotations and unfamiliar policy implications for those charged with making decisions about investment in city-related infrastructure. ‘A resilient city can resist shocks and it is capable of rebuilding itself, without sacrificing the basic characteristics of its control and functions.’ 1‘ This guide is an initial step in formalizing what this encompasses and agreeing with counterpart governments, city leaders and all stakeholders precisely what it means in terms of a practical, joined-up approach. The basic approach of the guide to the issues can be understood be reference to the device of the ‘urban resilience traffic signals’: ● Understand the existing risk context – don’t go ahead until you have assessed institutional and hazard risks; ● Assess the feasibility of potential resilience measures – make sure your resilience measures are feasible and address uncertainty within the project, taking into account what may be proposed beyond it; ● Determine the investment strategy - Make the necessary additions to what is done normally and go ahead with the investment strategy Cities form part of larger urban systems where uncertainty is intensified as a result of complex, non-linear and unpredictable relationships between their various elements. Urban agglomerations and networks of towns and cities interact dynamically in their economic functioning but usually form a patchwork of different and politically distinct local government areas. Urban and rural areas are economically interdependent. Cities depend on the natural environment and resources of their surrounding region. Decision making under deep uncertainty implies need for ‘robust decision making’ – decisions that are flexible, iterative, adaptive; that work under a wide range of future climate and geophysical hazard scenarios, allowing for unpredictable so-called ‘black swan’ events2 with cascading or escalating impacts. Uncertainty is a key and growing challenge, particularly in relation climate change. There are two basic ways of dealing with it: 1. Wait for better information – this may save money early on but result in increased costs later for maintenance of replacement costs if climate change or other threats are worse than predicted. 2. Preparing for the worst and insure - this may not be too expensive if the cost of adjusting design standards at a later date is relatively small. Countries and cities will select among these options, depending on the specific investment decisions and their level of risk aversion. Uncertainty can be explored with the use of

<http://www.resalliance.org> Events of large magnitude and consequence that are outside the range of normal expectation, with very small, non-computable probability. See Taleb, N N (2010) The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, Second Edition, New York: Random House. 2

sophisticated scenario-based modelling techniques. The value of reducing uncertainty about future climate outcomes can be extremely high since it can better define what kinds of adaptation (viewed as a form of insurance) are most appropriate. One study showed in general economic equilibrium terms, the cost of adaptation varies by a factor of 3, depending on the climate change scenario considered so the cost selecting the ‘wrong’ strategy may be considerable. The World Bank’s Economic of Adaptation to Climate Change suggest that robust growth investment based on infrastructure investment is the first line of defence against climate change impacts3 whilst the World Bank and United Nations report Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention of how prevention is cheaper than cure as far as disaster risk management in concerned. There are two key aspects to the risk dimensions of urban infrastructure investment: a) The risk to the investment itself in the infrastructure is inadequately designed to cope with the threats of natural hazards and that it will fail or become obsolete and require replacement or costly modifications before the end of its useful design lifetime; b) The impact the investment has in reducing (or potentially increasing) the overall risk from natural hazards to the city and its inhabitants or particularly vulnerable communities, especially the poor, within it. These two aspects are summarized in the lifetime or life cycle benefits-to-cost assessment of projects which, given the scale of infrastructure investment implied by the growing threats of natural hazards to cities in East Asia and Pacific, needs to be at the centre of our concern. This implies that any risk assessment of a proposed investment in urban infrastructure operates both at the level of the project itself, and at the wider city scale where the investment is taking place. Understanding the city context becomes critical, the more so when the most cost effective investment in terms of risk reduction may not be in costly infrastructure but in ‘non-structural’ alternatives, for example in strengthening the institutions of city governance including community participation in decision making and urban planning, and the laws and regulations governing physical development. In practice, this is not an either/or situation. Investment in infrastructure is clearly vital if a city is to thrive, if it is to attract productive investment, vanquish poverty and raise the quality of life for all its citizens. However, the greatest hurdle to effective infrastructure investment is institutional, in weaknesses in the machinery and processes of governance. Reducing the natural hazard risks through and to urban infrastructure investment means simultaneously addressing these institutional weaknesses. Ideally, institutional strengthening measures should be in place before the investment in infrastructure occurs but the risk reduction and basic infrastructure demand are urgent and can seldom wait on a drawn out urban reform process. In many countries some of the key policies are in place but, where this is not the case, or where the existing arrangements are inadequate, the task team needs to be able to assess how important or dangerous this situation may be and what can be done about it. The questions they will need to answer to include:    

What policies and institutions are in place? Are there existing governance strategies that can be tapped into or enhanced? Do new risk assessments need to be made or existing risk assessments updated? What are the consequences to the investment strategy?

City governance is complex with policies and institutions at the city level conditioned on the one hand by what happens at the national and sub-national – state, provincial or regional – level and on the other by local political concerns and divergent interests. Many countries in East Asia and Pacific have made strides in these fields through decentralization and/or democratization. Some already have a strong basis of municipal-level 3

governance. Country assistance strategies like World Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy for Indonesia place strengthening of sub-national governance high on their agenda. However, serious gaps are likely to remain and the task manager is faced with the challenge of identifying these and deciding what to do about them. Some will be obvious whilst others relating to the various aspects of hazard risk management will require specialist input. How much of each will depend on the circumstances. An infrastructure investment program will in most cases include an element of knowledge transfer, training and capacity building. It will necessarily take steps to involve affected communities and other stakeholders in decision making to ensure their buy-in to the process. This will contribute in some degree to institutional strengthening at the local level but has to be seen in relation to separate initiatives and as part of an ongoing process of reform and changing understanding of risks and uncertainties associated with natural hazards and climate change. A contextual study will place these elements in a comprehensible framework and sets out the agenda for the necessary adaptive, collaborative and inclusive forms of governance to make infrastructure investment and the cities in which it is taking place resilient.

.! !'+#)/#%0% -'+#*'12% .! 31,++"+4% 2#,+5,*52% .! !"67)+28% )/9)-#,6'+2%

.! >,#,%%'+%(?1+)*,@"1"#$% .! A+("*'+=)+#,1%-*"#)*",% .! B"+,+-",1%2#,@"1"#$%

!"#$% &'()*+,+-)%

:"2;%<22)22=)+#%!*"#)*",%

This study – the City Context Study is at the heart of this guide. The three elements – the governance context, the natural hazard risk assessment and the investment strategy, as a best to go forward are shown in the figure below.

C+()2#=)+#% D#*,#)4$% .! A-'+'="-% *)#?*+2% .! 3*'E)-#% F",@"1"#$% .! A/9)-#)5% G)+)H#2%

City context for mainstreaming resilience in urban investment projects The study of the city governance context should include its own institutional risk assessment following the ‘traffic signal’ model adopted by the guide: Institutional risk assessment ● What are the institutional risks to the investment? How important are they? What institutional and resilience policy constraints are being addressed or should be highlighted for

action by others (the policy road map)? What critical institutional and resilience policy measures are not in place and without them being in place the investment should not go ahead? ● What is possible to achieve within the existing risk constraints? What can the investment itself contribute? Are there work-arounds and contingency plans? ● What is the basis of a successful investment strategy – What combination of critical institutional and policy measures already in place, future planned policy developments and additions from the project will help to ensure the success of the project investment strategy? The natural hazard risk assessment follows the same model Natural hazard risk assessment ● What are the natural hazard risks to the investment? An adequate risk assessment is essential. Without the project should not go ahead. This should be a mandatory part of an environmental assessment. ● What is possible to achieve within the existing risk constraints? What can the investment contribute to risk reduction? What risks are there to the project itself? ● What is the basis of a successful investment strategy? – has a review of existing or new risk assessment exists successfully commissioned and completed? Has the feasibility of resilience measures been tested. Have uncertainty factors been accounted for Hazard risk assessment should be a key element of any environmental assessment of any infrastructure investment project. The environmental assessment should become a mandatory part of any safeguard policy for all projects with a resilience chapter as a fundamental part of it, as a mandatory requirement, even if it demonstrates that risks are minimal. Uncertainty demands this.

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Mainstreaming resilience in urban infrastructure investment projects: a process of assurance ‘Urban resilience’ is convenient shorthand for crystallizing the concerns of natural hazard risk management and climate change adaptation for cities. It is a term that is at once seemingly familiar but with profound connotations and unfamiliar policy implications for those charged with making decisions about investment in city-related infrastructure. ‘A resilient city can resist shocks and it is capable of rebuilding itself, without sacrificing the basic characteristics of its control and functions.’ 1‘This guide is an initial step in formalizing what this encompasses and agreeing with counterpart governments, city leaders and all stakeholders precisely what it means in terms of a practical, joined-up approach. This chapter sets out how resilience should be embedded and mainstreamed within the investment project management cycle to reduce the risk to cities and their populations from natural hazards; and how it should improve the probability that any investment will reap maximum returns and achieve its full design objectives without reducible risk from natural hazards.

1.1

The context for mainstreaming urban resilience This guide is concerned with investment in urban infrastructure and how it can contribute to making the cities of East Asia and the Pacific more resilient to natural hazard risks. This chapter will focus on why it is important to consider disaster and climate change risks when planning or appraising any urban investment project, the challenges and gaps in current approaches, the benefits that accrue from a mainstreaming resilience approach and how to systematically go about it. In developing any urban investment project, given the complexities of urban systems and their relationships to larger sub national (state, provincial or regional) and national entities, there is a need to consider the urban risk and governance context. The resource requirements will vary considerably with the circumstances but some guidelines are set out below in Section 1.3. The guide is primarily concerned with city level investment that focus on the following project types: •

Urban infrastructure investment projects such as those relating to water supply, sanitation, urban drainage, transport, and solid waste management;

•

Building upgrading, retrofitting or new building development projects such as those relating to schools, hospitals, and public buildings;

•

Land/site development, or resettlement projects;

•

Urban upgrading projects;

•

Post disaster reconstruction and disaster risk management projects.

•

Green infrastructure, urban landscape design and wider environmental management programmes: see in particular Chapter 6.

In some projects, for example those concerned with flood management, hazard risk management would be expected to be a key consideration with resulting resilience benefits for the affected urban populations. However, in some cases an urban focus may be lacking while, in other projects that do not focus on risk reduction, there are often significant implications for urban resilience. All projects with implications for cities and their populations should therefore be subject to review in developing any national or city level urban resilience assessment as described below. Moreover, any such project should be implemented in a coordinated manner, through effective urban planning that takes full account of natural hazard risks and the uncertain changes associated with climate change. The guide argues that this requires a new type of planning, one that takes a systems approach and looks to synergies between economic and ecological systems;2 and one that employs

<http://www.resalliance.org> See Suzuki, H, Dastur, A, Moffatt ,S, Yabuki, N and Maruyama H (2010) Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities 2

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

flexible and adaptable spatial development frameworks at the city regional scale. This approach is outlined in chapter 5, and prefigured in Chapters 3 and 4. Typology of contextual urban investment projects Chapters 6 and 7 are concerned with technical issues relating to the design of urban infrastructure and wider regional scale environmental infrastructure investments to build urban resilience. However, since the major challenges to mainstreaming urban resilience may lie in broader areas such as economic and sustainable development or city management, finance and governance, the full range of urban investment projects included, for example, in the World Bank’s new Urban and Local Government strategy for East Asia and Pacific may need to be considered (see Table 1.1)3. The new strategy suggests five business lines considered critical for cities and local governments in the decade ahead Discussions with World Bank staff and external professionals show that ‘resilience’ should be part and parcel of these lines of business:    

Focusing on the core elements of the city system: city management, finance, and governance. Making pro-poor policies a city priority: reducing urban poverty and upgrading slums. Supporting city economies: cities and economic growth. Encouraging progressive urban land and housing markets: urban land, housing, and planning. Promoting a safe and sustainable urban environment: urban environment, climate change, and disaster management.

<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:22504204 ~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html> pp46-49, 59-60, 86-88, 101. 3 World Bank. East Asian and Pacific: Systems of Cities – Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Reduction, the World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy. Sustainable Development Network, Urban and Local Government Anchor <http://www.wburbanstrategy.org/urbanstrategy>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 1.1: Urban investment project typology in East Asia Pacific4 World Bank East Asia Pacific Strategy: Priorities

Project Lending

On-Going Research/ Technical Assistance

City Management, Finance, and Governance: Focusing on the core elements of the city system - Increase finance for urban citywide infrastructure - Promote better municipal management and improved metropolitan regional relationships

Small town projects improving basic infrastructure services and urbanrural links Wholesaling instruments including municipal development projects and funds on urban infrastructure Citywide infrastructure projects on water utility restructuring and investment, solid waste management, basic urban service provision, and improvement of urban governance Local government performanceâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; based grants program Local government and decentralization projects Metropolitan transport projects

Public-private partnerships and infrastructure finance Municipal financing (intergovernmental fiscal transfer, credit worthiness) Metropolitan management study for several metropolitan cities Financing solutions for urban water supply Public expenditure review and strategy update for urban environmental sanitation National urban development strategies Developing sub-national capital markets

Reducing Urban Poverty and Upgrading Slums: Making pro-poor policies a city priority - Increase target of services for urban poor

National and city-level slum upgrading programs and projects Output-based aid projects, including water supply Community-driven development projects on service improvements for urban poor

Developing national target program for urban upgrading

Cities and Economic Growth: Supporting city economies - Promote city competitiveness - Increase lending for cultural heritage and tourism

Doing Business survey at sub national level (International Finance Corporation) Cultural heritage projects, including preservation of cultural assets and promotion of tourism

Leading and lagging economic regions and urbanization impacts Cluster-based planning and development, including cultural heritage and tourism development

Regional development and city economic growth projects Urban Land, Housing, and Planning: Encouraging progressive urban land and housing markets - Expand lending for citywide housing and land market policy Urban Environment, Climate Change, and Disaster Management Promoting a safe and sustainable urban environment - Continue work on climateresilient cities - Promote environmentally and economically sustainable citiesIncrease focus on disaster risk management and response

Resettlement policy Low-income housing development, mortgage finance, and housing microfinance

Water resource management DRR & climate adaptation Solid waste management ECO2 cities Catastrophe deferred drawdown option

Practical sanitation solutions Impacts of climate change on urban drainage systems in coastal cities Application of cities and climate change adaptation in three cities Primer/resilience cities for climate change ECO2 Cities audits and building codes Local government disaster management program Rapid assessment audit

4 4

World Bank. East Asian and Pacific: Systems of Cities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Reduction, the World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy. Sustainable Development Network, Urban and Local Government Anchor <http://www.wburbanstrategy.org/urbanstrategy>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

1.2

Urban resilience: basic concepts There are many general definitions of resilience in circulation including the disaster risk management formulation given by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (Box 1.1). ‘Urban resilience’ relates to the hazard risks affecting the population and assets of urban areas. The Stockholm Resilience Centre, which researches cities as complex social-economic and ecological systems, gives the following definition:5‘ ‘A resilient city can resist shocks and it is capable of rebuilding itself, without sacrificing the basic characteristics of its control and functions.’ The shocks (and stresses) that concern this guide are those associated with natural hazards including climate change. Box 1.1 below sets out the basic concepts. Resilience is brought about by strengthening the coping and adaptive capacities of urban systems (in which the role of city governance is all important in setting the context for infrastructure investment). In the guide we refer to ‘hazards’ as shorthand for natural hazards that include those associated with climate change. The term ‘hazard risk management’ includes both disaster risks and longer-term risks associated with climate change. The basic approach of the guide to these issues can be understood be reference to the device of the ‘urban resilience traffic signals’: ● Understand the existing risk context – don’t go ahead until you have assessed institutional and hazard risks ● Assess the feasibility of potential resilience measures – make sure your resilience measures are feasible and address uncertainty within the project, taking into account what may be proposed beyond it; ● Determine the investment strategy - Make the necessary additions to what is done normally and go ahead with the investment strategy As explained in Chapter 2, there is no such thing as a ‘natural disaster’ as all disasters contain an element of human causation.6 ‘Natural’ hazard risk management means managing all the human factors contributing to natural hazards growing into the threat of disaster. In this respect, a natural hazard is a trigger for a human-induced chain of events that can lead to disaster. This is affected through disaster management measures (structural and non-structural), including disaster risk reduction, larger areas of disaster risk management including preparedness and swift and effective recovery from any impacts of hazards. It includes measures that address climate change adaptation and mitigation or bring other general reductions in environmental impact that mitigate unknown or uncertain future threats.7 The relationships between many of the terms listed in Box 1.1 are outlined in Chapter 2. Dealing with natural hazards is not a straightforward matter and requires a good basic grasp of human-natural environment interactions. This is a field in which the science of ecology, with its systems approach, is increasingly coming into its own (see, in particular, Chapter 6). Chapter 7, which deals with structural design issues, goes into further depth and explores new engineering systems-based methods for dealing with uncertain natural hazards and climate change that are increasing conditioning our response to these issues. Box 1.1: Some hazard risk-related definitions from United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) 8  Risk: The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.  Hazard: A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause

<http://www.resalliance.org> World Bank and United Nations (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank <http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/NHUD-home> 7 This is the aspect of sustainable development sometimes referred to as the ‘precautionary principle’. 8 UN/ISDR (2009) Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; <http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/UNISDRTerminology-English.pdf>; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Glossary of Terms used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Glossary of Synthesis Report <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_glossary.shtml> 6

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific



  

      



1.3

loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Natural hazard: Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Disaster risk: The potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period. Disaster risk reduction (DRR): The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (see the United Nations’ 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action) Disaster risk management (DRM): Disaster risk management aims to avoid, lessen or transfer the adverse effects of hazards through activities and measures for prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Residual risk: The risk that remains in unmanaged form, even when effective disaster risk reduction measures are in place, and for which emergency response and recovery capacities must be maintained. Exposure: People, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses. Vulnerability: The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard 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. Disaster mitigation: The lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters. Climate change mitigation (CCM): With respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks. Climate change adaptation (CCA): Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects. Capacity: The combination of all the strengths, attributes and resources available within a community, society or organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals. Coping capacity: The ability of people, organizations and systems, using available skills and resources, to face and manage adverse conditions, emergencies or disasters. Adaptive capacity: The whole of capabilities, resources and institutions of a country or region to implement effective adaptation measures. Structural measures: Any physical construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, or application of engineering techniques to achieve hazard- resistance and resilience in structures or systems; Non-structural measures: Any measure not involving physical construction that uses knowledge, practice or agreement to reduce risks and impacts, in particular through policies and laws, public awareness raising, training and education.

Screening infrastructure projects for resilience Any investment strategy needs to be based on effective screening of infrastructure projects for urban resilience. This raises the following questions:  

Does the project aim to reduce exposure and vulnerability of urban populations and assets to natural hazard risk, including risks from climate change? If the project does not count hazard risk reduction amongst its aims, does it present hazard risks to urban populations and assets and have these been assessed?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 

What criteria, standards, benchmarks, methods and data have been uses to assess risk? Are these adequate?

A step-by-step guide to screening infrastructure projects for urban resilience is shown in Table 1.1. This requires an assessment of city governance involving a review of policies and institutions that have implications for urban risk management at national, sub-national, city levels. This includes a separate hazard and institutional risk assessments as follows: Natural hazard risk assessment ● What are the natural hazard risks to the investment? An adequate risk assessment is essential. Without it the project should not go ahead. This should be a mandatory part of an environmental assessment. ● What is possible to achieve within the existing risk constraints? What can the investment contribute to risk reduction? What risks are there to the project itself? ● What is the basis of a successful investment strategy? – Has a review of existing or new risk assessment exists successfully been commissioned and completed? Has the feasibility of resilience measures been tested? Have uncertainty factors been accounted for? Hazard risk assessment should be a key element of any environmental assessment of any infrastructure investment project. The environmental assessment should become a mandatory part of any safeguard policy for all projects with a resilience chapter as a fundamental part of it, as a mandatory requirement, even if it demonstrates that risks are minimal. Uncertainty demands this. Institutional risk assessment: ● What are the institutional risks to the investment? How important are they? What critical institutional weaknesses and resilience policy gaps are evident that could prevent the investment being successfully realized? ● What is possible to achieve within the existing risk constraints? What can the investment itself contribute? Are there work-arounds and contingency plans for policy and institutional hurdles? ● What is the basis of a successful investment strategy? – What combination of critical institutional and policy measures already in place, future planned policy developments and additions from the project will help to ensure the success of the project investment strategy? At the national level, there should be thought-through policies for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation but such policies may well not be in place, or be inappropriate or inadequate, particularly in relation to urban areas, A number of the larger and less poor countries of the East Asia and Pacific region are developing disaster risk management polices and some, such as the Government of the Philippines, have examples of good practice quoted in this guide. However, climate change adaptation measures are only just beginning to be considered. With rare exceptions (Box 1.2), international standards in these areas, as such, hardly exist. However, norms and guidance, for example in the form of the UN/ISDR’s Words into Action publication, which contains many examples of good practice, or publications such as the World Bank’s recently published Economic of Adaptation to Climate Change are useful reference points. Other recent World Bank publications such as Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities, which has a Reference Field Guide with an excellent set of case studies and Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention are widely referred to in this guide. In addition we include a wide range of case study material, with lessons from practice, drawn from both developed country (which set benchmarks to be aimed at) and developing country contexts (where the similarity in context means they are generally easier to transfer). Achieving the highest standards to create the safest, most resilient cities should be the ultimate aim. However, it is far more important that policies appropriate to the development context are put in place and implemented en route. In this respect, good practice from a high middle income country may be more relevant in the short and medium term to lower middle income and low income countries than examples from high income countries.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 1.2: ISO 31000 and its implementation in San Francisco ISO 310009 is a family of standards relating to risk management codified by the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 31000:2009 sets out principles, a framework and a process for the management of risk to be tailored to the specific needs and structure of the particular organization. It can be applied throughout the life of an organization, and to a wide range of activities, including strategies and decisions, operations, processes, functions, projects, products, services and assets. ISO 31000:2009 can be applied to any type of risk, whatever its nature, whether having positive or negative consequences. It addresses the entire management system that supports the design, implementation and maintenance and improvement of risk management processes. In November 2009 it was adopted as the first International Standard on Risk Management and the American Standard on Risk Management. The City and County of San Francisco10 is carrying out several activities at government, community and private/NGO level in order to establish a clear, best practice guideline for the definition and implementation of resilience in San Francisco. The on-going government projects involve the elaboration of a ‘Post-Disaster Financial Management and Cost Recovery Program’, including the principles set by the Enterprise Risk Management ISO 31000 Program. At the end of each of the ‘specialist’ chapters (Chapter 3 to 7) we include a ‘checklist for policy makers’ at national/sub-national and city levels based on a summary of the good practice principles set out in the chapter. These checklists can also serve to identify knowledge gaps and as a brief for any review that is undertaken or commissioned, both at the policy level or in to provide the context for investing in urban infrastructure. Any review undertaken on the basis of these checklists is best undertaken by governance and other specialists. The checklist questions follow the order in which good practice principles and lessons from practice are organized within the chapter and are not prioritized. An adviser with the relevant expertise would be able to decide a reasonable set of priorities and advise on the contingency measures to be undertaken where the answer to questions raised in these checklists is no. The size of the city and scale and nature of the project will determine inputs in each individual case within the broad timescale indicated. The nature of any partnerships with local and senior governments and other stakeholders can seriously affect project management issues with knock on effects for program timescale. Senior experts are required for policy reviews and to lead of risk assessments with continuous inputs by lead consultants or those with major inputs, and shorter inputs by other experts, appropriately timed to feed into the overall reporting process. Several specialized experts many be needed within a given field – for example, climate and flood and seismic experts, within the broader environmental field, or housing and land tenure specialists within the larger urban planning field. Some tasks such as helping to facilitate participatory exercises or basic GIS technical inputs might be undertaken by junior staff depending on the scale of inputs required. Note that all the above inputs are additional to the normal development and design inputs, though, in some cases, may take place in parallel with them. 1.4

Review of policies, legislation and institutions at national and sub national level The greatest hurdle to building urban resilience is institutional, through inefficient and unresponsive governance. Any top-down strategic approach is destined to fail without democratic, accountable and well-resourced local government and buy-in from urban communities, individuals and organizations with a direct stake in collaborative governance. These aspects are covered in Chapters 3 and 4. The constraints include:11

ISO 31000 – Risk Management, <http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_and_leadership_standards/risk_management.htm> 10

Department of Emergency Management, City & County of San Francisco, http://www.sfdem.org/ Adapted from Coates N, Conway C and Calow R (2011) The ‘mainstreaming’ approach to climate change adaptation: insights from Ethiopia’s water sector, ODI Background Note 11

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

1. Lack of an awareness and understanding of resilience, hazard risk management and climate change issues for cities and their regions; 2. Lack of defined institutional responsibilities and a lead agency to address these issues; 3. Absence of commonly-agreed indicators for monitoring progress and performance; 4. Lack of an inter-sectoral approach; 5. Lack of coordination between different levels of government; 6. An inflexible decision-making process – the ability to incorporated lesson learning and adapt and update plans; 7. Lack of capacity to address the issues on a continuous basis. Box 1.3: Potential urban resilience performance indicators 1. Percentage of investments that incorporate spatial and structural risk reduction measures 2. Number of slum dwellers/urban poor with reduced hazard exposure (i.e. located in defined hazard zones) 3. Urban population with reduced hazard exposure; 4. Value of assets with reduced hazard exposure (potential reduction in tangible losses) 5. Number or proportion of critical facilities with reduced exposure; 6. Number of slum dwellers/urban poor with reduced (socio-economic) vulnerability to environmental hazards; 7. Urban population with reduced hazard vulnerability to environmental hazards; 8. Degree to which risk is reduced for critical elements of urban economy (those affecting the livelihoods of the most vulnerable) are protected through structural (exposure-related) and nonstructural (vulnerability-related) measures. It may also imply considering other types of region that are defined more by the nature of the hazard, such as:  Coastal regions and river basins prone to flooding;  Upland areas prone to landslides and mudflows;  Areas around fault lines or with other geological structures that make them prone to geophysical hazards;  Regions particularly sensitive to climate change hazards through floods, droughts, sea level change, heatwaves and wildfires. Governmental or quasi-governmental authorities may exist for such regions (see Table 3.1, Chapter 3), related to central or sub-national government departments but adding a further layer of complexity to the institutional framework. In order to undertake a proper periodic review of policies and guidance relating to natural hazard risk management, a full-scale hazard risk assessment may be necessary, with a nationwide mapping exercise (see Box 1.4). While an effective regulatory framework for building urban resilience in being developed, there needs to be a greater reliance on non-statutory guidance and on establishing a ‘culture’ of risk and resilience-aware practice. Involving and building the awareness of communities in this process is critical, as outlined in Chapter 4. The property and construction industries and built environment professionals have to be on board.12 An increasing variety of methods and forms of communications are available for building awareness but need to be backed by resources and political will at senior levels of decision-making. Often, it is a case of getting politicians and top-level city managers on board first (see Section 1.8).

See Lloyd-Jones, T (ed) (2009) The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response: A guide for humanitarian agencies, RICS, RIBA, ICA RTPI., London, MLC Press, University of Westminster http://developmentfromdisasters.net/. This gives clear guidance on how to do this.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 1.2: Example of policy matrix for resilience policy entry-points for the Philippines Country

The Philippines

National legislation/policy/strategy Climate change

Disaster management

Sub-national level

Local government

Environment

Urban development

Slum or resettlement

Philippine Climate Change Act 2009; Formulation of National Climate Change Action Plan.

Law RA 10121: Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; Formulation of National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP); National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund; Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (RDRRMCs); National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (NDRRM Fund).

Law RA 10121: Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils (RDRRMCs)

Law RA 10121: City, Municipality and Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management; Plans (LDRRMPs) and Offices (LDRRMOs); Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund; Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils.

Decree of Administrative Order (DAO) 30/2003 for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine (EIS) System; Includes Procedural Manual for formulation of EIS and Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).

Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program or SIRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as part of the Urban Development and Housing act 1992. It refers to the program of the National Housing Authority of upgrading and improving blighted squatter areas outside of Metro Manila pursuant to existing statutes and pertinent executive issuances.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 1.4: Nationwide geo-spatial mapping of local hazards and vulnerability13 Significant progress is being made in developing geo-spatial information systems to systematically record, hazard prone locations and document disaster loss. These range from stand-alone projects to mapping based on census and data collection. Bangladesh for instance has recently embarked upon a $2 million project assisted by the World Bank to create multi-hazard maps of all the districts in the country over the next five years. The appointed team of consultants with expertise in GIS/MIS, climate change downscaling, river/coastal hydrology, soil and groundwater, bio-diversity and community based DRR will use this project to train a whole department within the Bangladesh Government in mapping techniques and to ensure these are kept up to date. Bangladesh already has a substantial expertise in GIS and related exercises have been constructed there before such as mapping HIV/AIDS at the district level. India’s JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) stipulates that all towns included in the scheme develop GIS/ MIS data. Topographical mapping, mapping built areas and basic infrastructure is procured through a competitive process. There is considerable in-country expertise in this area. It can take about 2-3 years to complete the process including mapping disaster events onto geo-spatial databases. The cost of acquiring professional services is under $500,000 on top of which are the operational costs of setting up data-centres. The biggest issue is the wider infrastructure for connectivity and availability of energy. Extensive training is required at the municipal level to carry out this work. India already has a National Hazard and Vulnerability Atlas now in its second edition, this draws extensively upon the census information collected every ten years. The information however is not sufficiently downscaled for use at the urban level. The Indonesian Disaster Data and Information Management Database (DIBI) is based on official Government data from 1815 to 2009. DIBI is already being used as the basis for national policy, planning and budgeting in disaster risk reduction and is informing development planning decisions. For example, Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) has used DIBI to identify hazard-prone areas across Indonesia in order to prioritize the creation of district level disaster reduction structures. Within Indonesia’s National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), the Directorate for Poverty Eradication is using DIBI to establish priorities for its own and donor-funded programmes. Ongoing work to improve DIBI includes incorporating additional attributes such as school-age children, health status, infrastructure, public facilities, income levels, types of livelihoods and spatial planning data. DIBI has also been used for pioneering applications in risk assessment, applying the methodology used in the GAR global risk model at the sub-national level. The maps below chart disaster frequency at the municipal level across two countries of Central America. National hazard mapping is also being conducted in Guyana, Mozambique, Costa-Rica, Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Vietnam, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen.

Source: Global Assessment Report 2011; Support programme for Urban Reform, India; Ripin Kalra

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Disaster frequencies in Guatemala, Costa-Rica and Panama. 1.5

Urban resilience in the investment project management cycle The investment project management cycle is a key instrument for understanding where and how an urban resilience approach can be applied at all levels. In this guide, we make reference to the World Bank Project Management Cycle14 but the same principles would apply to any project management cycle being used to guide investment. Figure 1.1 shows the project management cycle for a World Bank project. A number of checks and balances familiar to task-managers and city managers are already built into the cycle and these offer entry points for bringing urban resilience approaches on board.

WB EAST ASIA URBAN STRATEGYWorld Bank East Asia and Pacific Strategy <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:22518956 ~menuPK:6912861~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:337178,00.htm>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Country Assistance Strategy

Evaluation

Identification

1 2 3 6 5 4

Preparation, Appraisal and Board Approval

Implementation Implementation and Completion and Supervision

Figure 1.1: World Bank Project Management Cycle The Project Management Cycle (PMC) involves following stages: PCM 1 – Country Assistance Strategy: ‘The starting point for any World Bank intervention is the Country Assistance Strategy. The World Bank proposes financial, advisory and technical services to help countries identify their priorities and reach their main development goals. In the case of urban investment projects, there may be a specific urban development strategy.’ The main point here is that and Country Assistance Strategy should be reviewed and updated in terms of the national requirements for urban resilience and risk reduction set out in this guide. If necessary, a national level urban risk assessment should be undertaken involving consultation with stakeholders (including scenario development to address uncertainty issues) and a GIS-based hazard risk mapping exercise. 

PCM 2 – Project Identification: ‘Ideas for creating meaningful change are discussed. The Borrower and the Bank representatives weigh development objectives and project impacts, risks, alternatives and timetable’, resulting in a Project Concept.’ Project identification can be consequent on a number of different circumstances. Ideas for potential cities to pilot a resilience-based infrastructure program may have already been discussed with counterpart governments. It is assumed that preliminary risk assessment will have been carried out to prioritize the cities (their vulnerability may be obvious from known facts about the frequency of hazardous events and the numbers of people and size of assets at risk). Nevertheless it will be necessary to commission a risk assessment at the city level to determine the most cost-effective investment strategy. 

If priority cities and project types have not been identified, then a national level urban risk assessment may be necessary to indentify them. 

PMC3 – Project Preparation, Appraisal and Approval: ‘With advice and financial assistance from the Bank, the Borrower conducts studies and prepares detailed project documentation. The Bank assesses the economic, technical, institutional, financial, environmental and social aspects of the project. When the Bank and the Borrower agree on the terms of a loan or credit, the project is presented to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors for approval.’

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

‘Appraisal gives stakeholders an opportunity to review the project design in detail and resolve any outstanding questions. The government and the World Bank review the work done during the identification and preparation phases and confirm the expected project outcomes, intended beneficiaries and evaluation tools for monitoring progress. The Bank team confirms that all aspects of the project are consistent with all World Bank operations requirements and that the government has institutional arrangements in place to implement the project efficiently. All parties agree on a project timetable and on public disclosure of key documents and identify any unfinished business required for final Bank approval.’ In the guide, this work stage is identified with project design and appraisal. The City Context Urban Resilience Review study introduced above and described in more detail below is necessary to frame any work done at this stage of the project development, including previously identified projects. PCM 4 – Project Implementation and Supervision: ‘The Borrower implements the project, issuing contracts through competitive bidding processes that follow the Bank’s procurement guidelines. World Bank staff periodically supervises the project to make sure that the loan proceeds are used for intended purposes and with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.’ ‘Once underway, the implementing government agency reports regularly on project activities. The government and the Bank also join forces and prepare a mid-term review of project progress. The project's progress, outcomes and impact on beneficiaries are monitored by the government and the Bank throughout the implementation phase to obtain data to evaluate and measure the ultimate effectiveness of the operation and the project in terms of results.’ All the necessary standards for implementing the project and indicators for measuring its progress in terms of risk reduction and resilience should have been identified and agreed in the project preparation. 

PCM 5 – Project Completion: ‘At the end of the loan or credit disbursement period (anywhere from 1 to 10 years), a completion report identifying project results, problems and lessons learned is submitted by operations staff to the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors for information purposes.’ A World Bank operations team compiles this information and data in an Implementation Completion and Results Report, using input from the implementing government agency, cofinanciers, and other partners/stakeholders. The report describes and evaluates final project outcomes. The final outcomes are then compared to expected results. Outputs using the project risk and resilience indicators can form part of this report. 

PCM 6 – Project Evaluation: ‘After a Borrower completes a project, the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) measures the outcomes against original objectives and assesses whether or not the project’s results can be maintained over the long term. A number of projects are further scrutinized in detailed impact evaluation reports.’ The Bank's Independent Evaluation Group assesses the performance of roughly one project out of four (about 70 projects a year), measuring outcomes against the original objectives, sustainability of results and institutional development impact. From time to time, IEG also produces Impact Evaluation Reports to assess the economic worth of projects and the longterm effects on people and the environment against an explicit counter-factual. Not all investment projects could be expected to follow smoothly through all of the stages indicated above. There is little or no reference to urban resilience in country strategies as they stand so the entry point will be normally be PMC2 at project identification and conceptualization, although PMC3 is possible, if project has already been identified. Reconstruction projects following a disaster are driven by response to necessity, urgency and expediency and cannot often afford the luxury of a carefully staged development process. A rather different framework may be necessary and this is described in Chapter 2. 

1.6

Checking against World Bank Project preparation processes Given that, in the case of the Bank, the Country Assistance Strategy already exists and may or may not be coming up for its periodic (3-yearly) review, but is almost certain to address urban resilience issues only tangentially if at all. (A brief review of country strategies for South East Asian countries reveals no reference to the concept.) The likely first point of reference within the existing guidance will be therefore the Bank’s Safeguard Policies (Box 1.5).

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 1.5: World Bank Project Preparation – integrating urban resilience into environmental assessment and project design through Safeguard Policies ‘The borrower government and its implementing agency or agencies are responsible for the project preparation phase, which can take several years to conduct feasibility studies and prepare engineering and technical designs, to name only a few of the work products required. The government contracts with consultants and other public sector companies for goods, works and services, if necessary, not only during this phase but also later in the project's implementation phase. Beneficiaries and stakeholders are also consulted now to obtain their feedback and enlist their support for the project. Due to the amount of time, effort and resources involved, the full commitment of the government to the project is vital. Earlier screening by Bank staff may have determined that a proposed project could have environmental or social impacts that are included under the World Bank's Safeguard Policies. If necessary, the borrower now prepares an Environmental Assessment Report that analyzes the planned project's likely environmental impact and describes steps to mitigate possible harm. In the event of major environmental issues in a country, the borrower's Environmental Action Plan describes the problems, identifies the main causes, and formulates policies and concrete actions to deal with them….These plans are integrated into the design of the project.’ The proposal of the guide is that the Environmental Assessment Report becomes the key document for anchoring urban resilience in the project preparation process and that ‘resilience’ becomes a mandatory aspect for all World Bank Projects thus assessed. This is relative simply accomplished. At present, although the Environmental Assessment allows for positive and negative environmental impacts, it is weighted towards tradition Environmental Impact Assessment, and identifying and mitigating adverse environmental impacts. For example: Category A: A proposed project is classified as Category A if it is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works. EA for a Category A project examines the project’s potential negative and positive environmental impacts, including the potential for reducing risk from natural hazards, impacts relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation, and protecting and enhancing ecological services, compares them with those of feasible alternatives (including the “without project” situation), and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. For a Category A project, the borrower is responsible for preparing a report, normally an EIA (or a suitably comprehensive regional or sectoral EA) that includes, as necessary, elements of the other instruments referred to in para. 7. The proposal here is to retain Category A as primarily a project with adverse environmental impacts but adding the text in red to give greater specific emphasis to potential balancing positive environmental benefits relating to hazard risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the protection and enhancement of ecosystem services, an essential element of non-structural risk management (see Chapter 6). The ‘instruments referred to in para. 7’ already include risk assessment. Additionally, it is proposed to add another category of project, provisionally called ‘Category D’, with the following specification to address urban resilience: Category D: A proposed project is classified as Category D if it primarily designed to reduce risk from natural hazards, including the anticipated adverse effects of longer-term climate change, in urban areas. Category D projects, whilst reducing the vulnerability or exposure of people and assets to natural risks, may also have significant, less significant and reversible or minimal adverse impacts on the natural environment. EA for a Category D project examines the project’s potential positive and negative environmental impacts, compares them with those of feasible alternatives (including the “without project” situation), and recommends any measures needed to improve positive environmental performance impacts and prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts. For a Category D project, the borrower is responsible for preparing a report, normally a hazard risk assessment, together with an EIA (or a suitably comprehensive regional or sectoral EA) that includes, as necessary, elements of the other instruments referred to in para. 7. If required these provisions could be set out in an Operational Memorandum that deals specifically with urban environmental impacts. However, all such projects, whether directly concerned with urban infrastructure or development, or relating to wider areas and other sectors, should be subject to the provisions of this memorandum. Further specific additions to the operational policies may be necessary. Emergency Recovery Projects have a special project status that prioritizes the urgency WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

over other factors. Chapter 2 of this guide discusses how recovery and reconstruction projects could become more resilient but a risk-focused Environmental Assessment report is always going to be a part of this. Reference will be made to these policies in assessing the ‘economic, technical, institutional, financial, environmental and social aspects of the project’ under PMC3, in particular the Environmental Assessment Report noted in Box 1.4. The Environmental Assessment Report is ‘designed to analyze the planned project's likely environmental impact and describes steps to mitigate possible harm. In the event of major environmental issues in a country, the borrower's Environmental Action Plan describes the problems, identifies the main causes, and formulates policies and concrete actions to deal with them. From a social point of view, various studies aimed at analyzing a project's potentially adverse effects on the health, productive resources, economies, and cultures of indigenous peoples may be undertaken.’ Not every borrower has an Environmental Action Plan, and even where they exist they are not generally updated on a regular basis. In the longer term, borrowers might be expected to develop an Environmental Action Plan that is updated on a regular basis or directly addresses urban resilience issues. In practice, the Environmental Assessment Report relates more directly to the proposed project, which may or may not have any relationship to the Environmental Action Plan. It is here, therefore, that efforts to anchor urban resilience, as noted in box 1.4, should be directed. 1.7

The City Urban Resilience Context A City Urban Resilience Context Study comprises the three principle elements shown in Figure 1.2. A checklist of activities contained under these three major headings in given in Table 1.3. This provides cross-references to two UNISDR documents key are important sources of good practice for understanding and applying urban resilience: Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework and Guide to Making Cities Resilient. As previously noted, The City Urban Resilience Brief provides the means of assessing individual infrastructure investment projects in a particular city of city region. Territorial scope: while the definition of what constitutes ‘urban’ and rural differs from place to place and depends on the way local government boundaries are drawn, countries have a recognized urban hierarchy of primary and secondary cities and smaller settlements. This is a starting point for considering urban risk from natural hazards. However, the population of the ‘city proper’ does not necessarily give a good indication of how dense urban populations are distributed around the principal settlements or where the greatest vulnerability to natural hazards might be. Mapping urbanization at the larger scale can give a better picture of vulnerable urban regions and ‘agglomerations’. In this guide we employ the concept of the ‘city region’ as the area that should be considered by the brief for a particular city. This includes the central city and associated settlements in its metropolitan area (see Chapters 3 and 5) as well as the rural hinterland on which the city depends for its immediate needs. The boundary of this larger region needs to be defined pragmatically in each case according to common criteria. Factors that need to be considered are:         

Administrative boundaries; Extent of urbanization; Existing and proposed transport infrastructure, travel distances and economic catchment areas River basins and tributary catchment areas; Topography; Vegetation and tree cover.]; Volcanoes, fault lines and other local geological structures potentially hazardous to the urban population; Location of critical facilities – dams and reservoirs, nuclear and other power plant, refineries and major industrial installations; Local microclimates and their sensitivity to climate change.

At the city and national levels, and all area in between, mapping is an essential first step in defining the scope of guidance. Computer-based geographical information systems (GIS) and readily available and up-to-date satellite imagery have greatly enhanced the potential for doing this speedily and effectively (see Chapters 5 and 9).

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

.! !'+#)/#%0% -'+#*'12% .! 31,++"+4% 2#,+5,*52% .! !"67)+28% )/9)-#,6'+2%

.! >,#,%%'+%(?1+)*,@"1"#$% .! A+("*'+=)+#,1%-*"#)*",% .! B"+,+-",1%2#,@"1"#$%

!"#$% &'()*+,+-)%

:"2;%<22)22=)+#%!*"#)*",%

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

C+()2#=)+#% D#*,#)4$% .! A-'+'="-% *)#?*+2% .! 3*'E)-#% F",@"1"#$% .! A/9)-#)5% G)+)H#2%

Figure 1.2: City context for mainstreaming resilience in urban investment projects Table 1.3: Steps towards Mainstreaming Urban Resilience into Infrastructure Investment Projects Steps towards Mainstreaming Urban Resilience into Infrastructure Investment Projects

Relevance for the Task Team Leader

A. Gaining an understanding of CITY GOVERNANCE . National and sub-national context Organization and coordination Funding arrangements Urban planning and management Land management/development control Community coordination (Review any disaster warning and recovery strategy) B. Coordinating outputs of multi-stakeholder RISK ASSESSMENTS Data assembly and access â&#x20AC;&#x201C; carry out surveys as necessary Institutional risk assessment Hazard risk assessment (including participatory risk assessments and scenario development) Social stability and education processes Climate Change criteria for the location Environmental protection Financial Stability

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

This section is a rapid review of the urban resilience context for an urban infrastructure investment Project. It should be undertaken by the TTL (or commissioned experts) in order to gain an understanding of the current position of the context of the city and the national policies in respect of resilience, and identify where there may be gaps or shortcomings in the knowledge base. This would provide the basis for commissioning resilience inputs to the Environmental Assessment About 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4 week input, longer if commissioned. This section comprises the detailed analysis to be commissioned by the TTL in liaison with the host country from specialists in this field. About 4-8 months and possibly a new 15% of preparation costs.

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

C. Design and implementation of the INVESTMENT STRATEGY Planning and investment standards Physical planning and city-wide connectivity Building safety / regulatory framework Community planning and design inputs Set project design and physical investment plans Undertake financial assessment and viability

This section shows how the City Governance Context and the Risk Assessments would normally fit into the normal project cycle management stages of the TTL’s regular tasks.

Apply economic incentives Apply maintenance procedures and timetables Apply implementation roles / timetables Set long term view – feedback & measurement SET PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

A. The city level governance context for urban investments The following checklist offers markers for the major issues concerning the urban context. These need to be set against completion markers for recording and acting upon the resilience criteria for the project with staff responsibilities for achieving them, and the process set for dates to be agreed. File notes will be required for each aspect of the resilience chart. The process for gaining an understanding of the city governance structures and operations leads towards an operationalized resilience approach. Agreement will be required for any work outside the project that needs to be undertaken ahead of any urban investment project. More detailed guidance on the objectives to be achieved, good practice principles to be employed and criteria to be used are cross-referenced in the other chapters in the guide, as noted. Table 1.4: Steps in understanding the city level governance context A. Gaining an understanding of CITY LEVEL GOVERNANCE CONTEXT

Cross reference to chapters in the Guide

List responsibilities and dates completed for sign-off, with notes on issues to be recorded

1. National context

Chapter 1 and 3

2. City level organization and coordination

Chapter 3

3. City level finance arrangements

Chapter 3

4. Urban planning and management

Chapter 5

5. Land management/development control

Chapter 3 and 5

6. Community coordination/citizens’ expectations

Chapter 4

7. Disaster management strategy

Chapter 2

A.1 National and sub-national context: What is the national and sub-national (state, provincial, regional) contexts for resilience to disasters? Are there laws governing the aspects of resilience? Should there be a strengthening of a regulatory framework to enable a mainstreaming of resilience? If a National Urban Resilience Brief exists this should be referred to. How are climate change issues dealt with? (Is there an expectation of greater degrees of flooding. River basin management; pollution and dealing with air quality – will this have an impact on public transport investments, for example?) A.2 Organization and coordination at city level: What are the existing organizational structures within the city – public, private and civil society? Do ‘vulnerability to hazards’ or ‘resilience’ figure anywhere in these structures? If not is it expected that such factors should be developed ahead of the urban investment project itself is there a need to challenge this and promote a change? What is the

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

level of coordination amongst responsible staff? Is ‘resilience’ acknowledged by any of the project stakeholders? Refer to Appendices for the complete ‘city level resilience brief’ that can be used to advise all city level stakeholders of the extent to full such resilience criteria have been put in place, and where there are gaps. This exercise can be used to determine what further work needs to be done in order to provide the particular project with an adequate resilience context at the national level. Funding for new work required to fill gaps will be determined with the IFI or development agency’s national director. A.3 Funding arrangements: For each urban investment project, a record is required of the following contextual situation:  What are the city’s funding arrangements for management and investments generally?  Record the overall city financing arrangements and the specific funding context for the project and for resilience purposes. A.4 Urban planning and management: Record the following situation status  How is urban planning and management conducted? The urban planning framework is one of the most important factor in determining the likely success of the infrastructure investment in terms of coordination with other major investments in the city and likely knock on effects of any stimulus to developments, particularly dangerous informal settlement that results from it.  Record the methodologies used, checking the age of the official documentation – city level master plans or development plans.  Discuss the updating procedures and likely timetables. A.5 Land use, land management information systems, development controls: Record the following situation status  How is land use and ownership recorded?  Are development controls robust? Along with inadequate urban planning, ineffective land administration and uncertain land tenure are key drivers of informal and high-risk settlements and potential hurdles to successful infrastructure investment.  Is ‘vulnerability’ directly mapped? Do disaggregated data exist?  Are hazards such as areas liable to flood, or for landslides mapped and used as ‘no-go’ areas safeguarding against potential urban development? A.6 Community coordination and citizens’ expectations: Record the following situation status:  What is the level of community coordination in the city and beyond?  Is there regular consultation with communities?  Are their voices and opinions heard / recorded?  Are communities aware of hazard risks and resilience measures?  How are citizens’ expectations considered?  Are these built into future development and redevelopment plans?  How would they affect or impact upon the urban investment portfolio?  Should specific work be done in order to make citizens more aware and be structured into a project specific consultation process? A.7 City level preparedness for natural disasters: Record the following situation status:  Have as a note the disaster warning systems, and the expectations for disaster recovery – is there a strategy as such?  Should there be a UNISDR-type city preparedness process conducted within the city? Conclude section A by testing the proposed project concept against these contextual criteria for relevance and information management, noting gaps to be filled iteratively; and then proceed to test the project with section B. World Bank Project Management Cycle reference: PCM 2 – Project identification PCM 3 – Preparation and Appraisal leading to Board Approval

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

B. Vulnerability assessment processes leading to risk assessment criteria and record Coordinating outputs of all unilateral and multi-stakeholder risk assessments with a view towards plugging gaps and developing risk criteria for the proposed investment project(s) Table 1.5: Steps in risk assessment B. Coordinating outputs of multi-stakeholder RISK ASSESSMENT

Cross reference to chapters in the Guide

List responsibilities and dates completed for sign-off, with notes on issues to be recorded

1. Urban resilience criteria for the location

Chapters 6 and 7

2. Data assembly and access (surveys as necessary)

Chapters 4, 5 and 8

3. Hazard risk and vulnerability assessment (City region mapping/GIS)/awareness

Chapter 3 and 8

4. Environmental protection and impact assessment

Chapter 6

5. Financial stability.

Chapter

B.1 Urban resilience criteria for the location: Record the following situation status:  Do disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) criteria exist for the locality?  Are they mapped or disaggregated sufficiently to assess infrastructure projects?  Should further study be commissioned to establish these? B.2 Data assembly and access: Record the following situation status:  What data exists on vulnerability and hazard risks? How is it assembled and accessed  Is there a case for improving such data collection? Is there a case for undertaking a GISbased risk and vulnerability assessment at the city region scale?  Could the urban investment project provide the stimulus for such improvements? B.3 Social stability and education processes: Record the following situation status:  Is there an awareness of potential hazards and the opportunity to strengthen resilience built into the education curriculum?  Could such an inclusion lead to a greater awareness in the urban society generally?  Would this lead towards a greater social stability? B.4 Vulnerability assessment and awareness: Record the following situation status:  How does vulnerability awareness figure within the social context?  How are the issues of vulnerability and mitigation brought to society – does it figure in the education programs?  Is there a need to strengthen this aspect?  How are vulnerability assessments made? Is vulnerability assessment in place and mapped geo-spatially? Does it cover low-income groups, critical infrastructure and informal trade?  Are specific locations identified for greater or lesser exposure and vulnerability?  Does this need to be done in the context of the specific urban investments?  Should things be done anyway that could use the trigger of the proposed investments as a reason for protecting far greater areas of the city? B.5 Environmental protection and impact assessment: Record the following situation status:  What are the issues surrounding environmental protection – are areas liable to flood mapped and where necessary fully protected?  Is ground permeability mapped?  Reference should be made back to land use controls and enforcement. B.6 Financial stability: Record the following situation status:  Is the financial architecture itself resilient to unforeseen hazard – is the risk containable with the present system?  Is there a need for contingency funds?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Section B should be concluded by testing the vulnerability of the proposed project concept against the data available and decide what still needs to be done. World Bank Project Management Cycle reference: PCM 3 – Preparation and Appraisal leading to Board Approval C. Design and implementation of resilient urban investment strategies Checklist for ensuring that the program and project cycle management processes incorporate ‘resilience’ criteria for the urban investments, and determining the broad program/project concept (needs and interventions) and its explanation, together with the expectations for performance (that will be measured) Table 1.6: Steps in operationalizing investment strategy C. Design and implementation of the INVESTMENT STRATEGY

Cross references to chapters in this guide

List responsibilities and dates completed for sign-off, with notes on issues to be recorded

1. Planning and investment standards context

Chapters 4 and 5

2. Physical planning/city-wide connectivity context

Chapter 5

3. Building safety/regulatory framework context

Chapter 3

4. Community participation context

Chapter 4

5. Project design and physical investment plans

Chapters 6 and 7

6. Check the financial assessment/viability

Following standard practice

7. Check the funding instruments to be employed

8. Check maintenance procedures and timetables

9. Check implementation roles/timetables

10. Set long term view, feedback and measurement

Summarize criteria from all chapters.

11. Performance assessment criteria

10. 11.

C.1 Planning and investment standards: Record the following situation status:  Defining the planning and resilience standards that define the investment parameters.  Considering the role that the involved or affected communities have in the planning and design processes, including timetable. C.2 Physical planning and citywide connectivity: Record the following agreed situation status:  Visualizing the physical planning of the project and relating it to the city-wide connectivity for broad review; listening to possible views and criticism from outside the project; building consensus on acceptable levels of risk and related resilience measures..  Consider the long-term maintenance implication for the projects and how they will be ensured within the citywide context of the project. This is part of the normal Bank preparation but considerations of uncertainty, particularly as described in Chapter 7, may shine a new light on this process. C.3 Building safety/regulatory framework: Record the following agreed situation status:  Consider building safety within the prevailing regulatory framework and defining any need to go beyond such standards where they d not meet the agreed risk reduction requirements. C.4 Stakeholder and community involvement and design inputs: Record the following agreed situation status:  Who are the stakeholders and communities directly affected by the project?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

  

Record the extent to which they have been involved in the design of the project and its expected outcomes. Who are other groups who feel they should be consulted on the design of the project. On top of normal Bank procedures consider participatory risk assessments and scenario development for modeling uncertainty.

C.5 Firm up project design and physical investment plans: Record the following agreed situation status: 

Confirm dates for firming up the project design and physical investment plans especially O&M?

C.6 Check the financial assessment and viability: Record the following agreed situation status:  Confirm dates for undertaking pre-final financial assessments to determine expected viability and performance criteria C.7 Check the robustness of the funding instruments: Confirm arrangements and timetable for financing instruments involved  Confirm dates for implementation and the personnel roles that will need to be in place that also define how ‘resilience’ is monitored within the program cycle. C.8 Check maintenance procedures and timetables: Record the following agreed situation status:  Confirm dates for personnel that will take over the completed project and the maintenance schedules and reviews that are required to ensure resilience and safety (assumption not to make things worse in a hazard context). C.9 Checking implementation roles and timetables: Record the following agreed situation status:  A log is required. This can be based on the checklists above, amended to suit particular project parameters. C.10 Setting the long-term view for ‘resilience’ feedback and measurement: Record the following agreed situation status:  Resilience only works when the feedback is robust. An overall refinement of the process can only occur when ‘what works’ is known. C.11 Set performance assessment criteria to take account of ‘resilience’: Record the following agreed situation status:  

Ensure that the performance measurement criteria are being monitored for periodic evaluation The remaining standard World Bank Project Cycle Management processes will then ensure that the project is implemented with the ‘resilience’ aspects in place, and will be evaluated in practice.

World Bank Project Management Cycle references: PCM 4 – Project Implementation and Supervision PCM 5 – Project Implementation and Completion PCM 6 – Project Evaluation 1.8

Communication the importance of urban resilience This guide aims to provide task managers with practical tools to assure investment in infrastructure projects that significantly contribute to urban resilience. However, ‘selling’ an urban resilience agenda remains a major challenge, if not to task mangers, then to counterparts who may be seeking to raise the profile of the urban resiliency in a crowded public policy agenda. All development agencies should have an interest in supporting efforts as raising awareness and getting buy in for resilience initiatives, if only in terms of getting funding support from sources other than their own. Urban hazards clearly have a dramatic content that can be used to good effect. Making the best use of media and communications is useful and Appendix 1… gives links to short videos that can be used in presentations.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Political focus and availability of resources for disaster risk reduction in any particular country tends to follow major disasters, in the context of ‘building back better’ (Box 1.6).15 Climate change adaptation has gathered political attention and international development funding has become increasingly available to support adaptation efforts in developing countries (see Section 1.9). This is a consequence of the recognition that climate change is now occurring and that climate change mitigation will not prevent resulting major impacts. Box 1.6: Learning from disasters – impacts on public policy16  Great Fire of London 1666  Lisbon Earthquake 1755  Mississippi Flood 1929  Bangladesh Cyclone 1970  Marmara earthquake 1999  Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004

     

London Building Acts for fire safety 1667 Safe Building Construction and urban planning 1755 TVA river controls 1933 Community shelters/warning system 1972-present Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul (EMPI) 2002-present Indian ocean warning system 2005-present The Philippines Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Law 24 2007, including Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)17

UN/ISDR’s Global Assessment Report for 2011 argues that government and business alike would make better resilience-conscious investment if the following were adequately communicated and built into investment decisions:18    

The sheer scale of recurrent and probable maximum losses should be enough to shock governments into action (see Chapter 2). The liability of governments for a significant part of total expected losses – for which they rarely have the matching contingency financing. The need for governments to decide how much risk they are willing to retain and how much they can afford to transfer. The recognition that a balanced portfolio of prospective, corrective and compensatory risk management strategies is the most cost-effective way to reduce disaster risks and support development.

It is not clear exactly how UN/ISDR intended this to be achieved but the facts speak for themselves if effectively put across. Some of the sources for these are widely drawn upon and referred to in this guide. One way that this might be achieved is giving much greater prominence to the communications strategy associated with any infrastructure investment project. This is not just a question of sharing knowledge and information with direct stakeholders but making wider use of information tools and the mass media, as well as presentation to senior decision makers to put the main points across. This is further picked up on below. More specifically, in relation to urban resilience, the 2010-2011 World Disaster Reduction Campaign. involving UNISDR, ICLEI, RTF-URR and other organizations, aims to instil an awareness of risk and the need for immediate attention to building resilience in city administrations according to the following checklist.19 These are all useful pointers for local governments and are covered in one aspect or another in this guide. However, normative principles in themselves do not produce results and the challenge of how to incentivize putting them into practice remains. Increasing the awareness and understanding of the consequences of not giving sufficient attention to resilience is one way of doing

Building back better ref to follow. Adapted from a presentation and reproduced by kind permission of Ian Davis 17 See Chapter 4. 18 Global Assessment Report 2011 19 ISDR 2010-2011 World Disaster Reduction Campaign, Making Cities Resilient – ‘My city is getting ready’ <http://www.unisdr.org/english/campaigns/campaign2010-2011/> campaign-kit. 16

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

this. An increasing number of cities are investigating future hazard scenarios and exploring the consequences of climate change for policy (Box 1.7) a) Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk, based on participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role to disaster risk reduction and preparedness. b) Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses and public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. c) Maintain up-to-date data on hazards and vulnerabilities, prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions. Ensure that this information and the plans for your city’s resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. d) Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. e) Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary. f) Apply and enforce realistic, risk-compliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for low income citizens and develop upgrading of informal settlements, wherever feasible. g) Ensure education programs and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and local communities. h) Protect ecosystems and natural buffers to mitigate floods, storm surges and other hazards to which your city may be vulnerable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. i) Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills. j) After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the survivors are placed at the centre of reconstruction with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Box 1.7: Climate change adaptation planning in New York ‘A comprehensive climate change strategy requires equal attention to both mitigating GHG emissions and building climate resilience’. This is the main statement reported in the climate change section of PlaNYC.20 As well as planning the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the protection of public health from the effects of climate change, for example, by promoting cool roofs and increasing the vegetated surfaces, the plan focuses on the assessment of vulnerabilities and risks from climate change, the increase of the city’s resilience and preparedness and the creation of a resilient community. The plan also points out how other initiatives in the housing and neighborhoods, parks and public space, waterways, water supply and energy field can contribute to increased climate change resilience. Re-evaluating the 2008 climate change projections for New York City, elaborating up-to-date flood maps and developing a tool able to quantify exposure and vulnerability to climate risks today and over time are the key actions that New York City is conducting in order to assess vulnerabilities and risks from climate change. In order to create a more resilient city the plan foresees to update of codes and standards for building construction - New York City is conducting a study to assess how freeboard can be used for a wider range of buildings and how this would affect the street life-, to work with regional infrastructure operators –such as the 40 members of the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force - to implement resilience strategies and to partner with the insurance industry to promote flood protection. Finally, climate change projections are due to be integrated into the emergency management and preparedness plans and procedures, and resilient communities are being created making information publicly available

PlaNYC – A greener, greater New York, The City of New York, April 2011

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

A consequence of such studies is a growing array of methods and tools available to resilience planners in cities in both developed and developing world contexts (see Box 1.8). In this guide we outline and offer links to many of these tools, as they relate to specific topics in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;technicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; chapters and the more generic tools and methods described in Chapter 8. Box 1.8: Flood risk mapping in Jakarta21 In the Jakarta Flood Project, flood simulation was the catalyst driving the development of a space and water road map stretching 20 years into the future. A complete upstream-downstream floodmodeling framework evolved for all major drainage including all 13 rivers. Although climate change is a factor, a thorough tidal analysis, especially as it relates to high tide flooding, revealed that subsidence was the major factor and resulted in the astonishingly accurate forecast of the November 26, 2007 flood event, down to the exact time. The obvious conclusion stemming from this flood event was that an integrated water resources management program that integrated spatial planning with water management was critical for flood hazard mitigation. No longer would isolated actions, undertaken with the best of intentions, be sufficient to deal with the long-term threat of recurring floods and the attendant damages to life and property. The space and water road map included all the elements of good governance: spatial planning, flood control, water supply, catchment management, peat water management, water quality, and solid waste management. The Dutch government provided technical assistance through its Partners for Water program. Deltares (Delft Hydraulics) was the principal consultant who had the insight to take a broader approach and was intimately involved with Indonesian government agencies and the World Bank in the development of an urban resilience plan for Jakarta and surrounding region. As a consequence of the February 2007, which affected 2.6 million people, the Jakarta Floods Initiative was lunched by the Dutch program Partners for Water. Part of the project is the Flood Hazard Mapping (FHM) Framework which uses advanced computer modeling and the most up-todate dataset to identify the causes of flooding and the deficiencies in the city's water management. An integrated approach is the obvious way to improve the city's flood protection as flood risk, subsidence and drainage are interrelated. Based on the FHM Framework results the authorities have already started to improve flood mitigation measures, such as the construction of a temporary sea defence wall in North Jakarta and, the construction of an elevated toll road to the airport, as well as projects to .pilot projects to restore the canals to its original design and to show the possibilities of dredging in an urban environment. The FHM Framework will also help stakeholders to assess large scale options such as the possibility of relocating 4 million people; the construction of a large-scale polder in the North or the creation of an inner-lake just North of the city in Jakarta Bay. The availably of tools to understand and plan for resilience, along with global campaigns, can assist in generating the political will at the municipal level. Hazards becoming disasters certainly spurs action but, in all cases, it is central government, through national (or sub-national) level policy, legislation and resourcing that makes local action possible. For this reason, we have given considerable space to policy measures and included checklists for policy makers in this guide. Above all, it is pressure from below from the communities threatened with disaster and hardship wrought by climate change who will bear the brunt and force the necessary response from the top down, through direct political pressure or channelled through civil society organizations. The availability of information access to knowledge on hazard risks and risk reduction at the individual household, business and community level is a critical aspect of this, while no urban resilience is possible with disaster-resilient communities (See Box 1.8)

Brinkman, JanJaap (Deltares), Hartman, Marco (HKV consultants), no year, Jakarta Flood Hazard Mapping Framework, http://www.hkv.nl/documenten/Jakarta_Flood_Hazard_Mapping_Framework_MH.pdf; Brinkman, JanJaap, VanBeek, Eelco, 2010, Urgent water challenges in Indonesia, in Deltares Views 4, 2010, pp. 6-9. http://epub02.publitas.nl/Deltares/11/magazine.php?spread=8

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 1.7: Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community22 Community organization for risk reduction: such as a development/disaster management group representing majority of people. Existing groups can be adapted. Disaster Preparedness Plan: supported by local/central government; to include regular review and contingency plans and participation of communities vulnerable groups in preparation and revision. Early warning system: An effective community-based early warning system Trained human resources: Trained people available at local level for risk assessment, search and rescue, first aid, relief distribution, safer building construction, fire fighting; effective delivery system. Access to infrastructure and physical assets: Access to a range of supporting community-based physical assets and infrastructure – roads, boats, electricity, phones/mobile phones, clinics, schools and safe havens. Disaster risk reduction action plans: Action plans for safer buildings and protection of infrastructure and physical assets to withstand local hazards, including retrofitting. Communications: effective linkages of local communities with local authorities, NGOs, humanitarian agencies, Legal support: Awareness of community members of legal and other avenues to enforce their rights and access to redress though legal rights NGOs and pro-bono professional support Political influence: access and influence of vulnerable groups to and over functions of governance at local, sub-national, national levels Community-based risk assessments: good quality community-based risk assessments and maps that are owned’ by both community and government that are monitored and reviewed Extent and quality of participation vulnerable groups in development of community risk assessments and maps Access to resources: a community disaster reduction fund to implement risk reduction activities; access at local level to resources for mitigation, response and recovery activities Sustainable livelihoods: Safer/appropriate/more diverse sources of livelihoods including protection of assets and natural capital most at risk. Education, knowledge and awareness: Awareness levels in the community, particularly children and vulnerable groups, of risks and risk reduction measures including early warning system. Reduced social vulnerability: access to social protection mechanisms – social insurance, affordable health provision and food security; understanding, protection and development of social capital. 1.9

Financial implications The World Bank/UN report Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention.23 About a fifth of total humanitarian aid between 2000 and 2008 was devoted to spending on disaster relief and response. The share of humanitarian funding going to prevention is small though increasing, from about 0.1 percent in 2001 to 0.7 percent in 2008. One of the report’s key recommendations is that governments must provide adequate infrastructure and other public services (see Box 1.9)

Box 1.9: Some ‘golden rules’ for investing in urban infrastructure24

Based on Box 2: Key indicators of community resilience in Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community: A Guidance Note, Twigg, J (2007) Version 1 (for field testing)for the DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group (based on indicators of ADPC, Plan International and Practical Action 23

World Bank and United Nations (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank <http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/NHUD-home> 24 United Nations and World Bank (2010)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 ‘Spending should go down a list arranged in descending order of (economic) rates of return. But when subject to arbitrary budget spending limits and lumpiness, low-return spending often gets put ahead of postponable high-return spending. Since maintenance can be postponed, it gets deferred—repeatedly—until the asset crumbles.  Governments must ensure that new infrastructure does not introduce new risk. This is particularly important since, in many developing countries, infrastructure investment—long-lived capital stock—is likely to peak in the coming few decades.  Locating infrastructure out of harm’s way is one way of doing so.  Where that may not be possible, another way is to execute multipurpose infrastructure projects, such as Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART).- see Box 1.10.  Infrastructure, even when well designed, constructed, and maintained, cannot always prevent disasters. Governments must, therefore, pay heed a subset of ‘critical infrastructure’ that once selected, is subject to higher than usual “margins of safety” (the extra strength that engineers build into designs). Governments must be careful about keeping the list short: when it includes too many assets, the costs rise without commensurate benefits.’ Major infrastructure investment can measure in scale up to hundreds of millions dollars (typically $100-$300 million but sometimes as much as $500 million or more). However, projects that are much smaller in scale, ranging from thousands to a few million dollars, can have a significant impact on urban risk and resilience at the local scale. New stormwater drainage or better maintenance of existing can prevent heavy downpours turning into disastrous flash flooding, for example. Thousands spent on an awareness campaign to discourage fly tipping in streams and rivers and encourage better solid waste management can have a similar impact. This guide is mainly concerned with assessing the impact of international development lending or assistance on urban resilience. However, of necessity, it also addresses resilient investment in general, regardless of its financing source. Much larger investments in infrastructure are being made by EAP countries from own sources or borrowing from the market. At the local level, major infrastructure investment has a knock on effect in leveraging smaller scale, but potentially cumulatively huge private investment in urban development (which in turn can impact on hazard risk if not properly managed). All of this has implications for the many investors holding the risk from potential urban hazards and disasters, including how spin-offs from major investment in infrastructure can enable and reinforce individual households and business resilience measures.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

Average rehabilitation index (percent)

50 40

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific 30 20 10

Box 1.10: Multipurpose infrastructure: Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwater Management and Road 0 Tunnel (SMART) Generation

Main

Irrigation

Urban

Rural

Railways

Rural

Average

Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwaterroads Management and Road Tunnel Floods from heavy rains are water water (SMART): roads a hazard, and the 9.7km long $514 million tunnel has three levels (Figure 1.3 below), the lowest for Infrastructure drainage and the upper two for road traffic. The drain allows large volumes of flood water to be Note: The rehabilitation index shows the average percentage across countries of each type of infrastructure in diverted from the city’s financial district to a storage reservoir, holding pond, and bypass tunnel. poor condition and thus in need of rehabilitation. Combining drain with the road Source:the Briceño-Garmendia, Smits, andhas Fostertwo 2008.advantages: it ensures maintenance of a drain that otherwise would be used only sporadically, and it costs less than building each separately. Figure 4 Three modes of operation of the SMART Tunnel HOLDING BASIN STORAGE RESERVOIR

HOLDING BASIN

NO STORM STORAGE RESERVOIR

HOLDING BASIN

YEARLY STORM

STORAGE RESERVOIR

MAJOR STORM Source: Mott MacDonald Group 2009.

drain that otherwise would be used only sporadically, and it costs less than Figure 1.3: Kuala Lumpur’s Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART)

building each separately. Infrastucture, even when well designed, constructed, and maintained, 1.10 Financial opportunities incentives cannot always preventand disasters. Governments must, therefore, pay heed to

A number of countries in East Asia have overhauled their policy environment in the light of recent natural disasters, evidence of adverse climate change, rapid urbanization, poverty reduction and concerns about basic services for the urban poor. World Bank urban investment will take place in the context of these evolving policies and obligations. Mapping these policies at the project level and compliance with them will be necessary. It also has an added benefit to open up the possibilities to tap into existing national and international incentives such as adaptation funds or/and carbon finance and to blend or co-ordinate investment in urban resilience across several funding streams. For instance, in India the JNNURM25 funds provide technical assistance for cities to plan and develop a public transport system which could form part of an infrastructure resilience enhancement program. In addition to international development assistance and national government funds, they include domestic sources such carbon markets, where these exist, and investment banks as well as international sovereign and private institutional investors. Mapping out the national level policy matrix (see Section 1.12) may suggest alternative sources of finance not previously identified in the Country Strategy and ways to blend or co-ordinate additional

<www.jnnurm.nic.in>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

investment in urban resilience. This is particularly in the international context but also at the national level where public sector investment programs have not previously received support from IFIs.26 If the risk reduction measures and policies under consideration relate to climate change, for example, then international adaptation funds may be relevant providing an additional incentive to invest. As far as adaptation is concerned, the international (grant) funds available are based on the principle of additionally which means that any projects so funded will be outside the mainstream of development assistance (see Box 1.11). However, task managers may wish to recommend this source of funding to certain CCA projects that fall within the remit of building urban resilience and are complementary to other mainstream efforts. Addressing the threats of more uncertain ‘slow fuse’ hazards may be critical alongside rapid and slow onset events which are normal focus of hazard risk reduction. If there are significant sustainable development benefits, then forest protection or carbon offsetting (CDM) may be appropriate (see: Box 1.11). Investment targeted at sustainable carbon-reducing infrastructure development at the city level or conserving or planting forests to mitigate hazard impacts could form part of the mix of measures. However, the current and growing complexity and confusion around different types of climate change funds and their relationship to mainstream ODA requires careful consideration of the conditions associated with these different funding streams (see Box 1.12) Box 1.11: Adaptation funding and the principle of additionally27 ‘In the era of sector-wide approaches (SWAPs), where donors support central government budgets, cross-cutting issues such as gender or climate change should be addressed through routine sector planning and budgeting (Elsey et al., 2005) to ensure they are incorporated into the ‘mainstream’ of development. However, international funding mechanisms for adaptation are geared towards providing financial resources that are ‘additional’ to existing development aid budgets (Brown and Bird, 2009). This principal of additionality could conflict with the mainstreaming approach as it distinguishes between ‘adaptation’ and ‘development’, thereby hindering conceptual integration. Certainly, in most developing countries poverty reduction and adaptation remain largely separate strategies (Prowse et al., 2009). There is a risk that ‘additional’ funding creates incentives for recipient countries to design ‘additional’ projects or programs for adaptation, rather than addressing climate change through existing sustainable development and poverty reduction initiative.’ ‘Climate finance is intended to be ʻnewʼ and ʻadditionalʼ to existing development aid budgets to ensure that developing countries receive the assistance they need to respond to climate change. However, this could create incentives to address adaptation as an ʻadditionalʼ environmental component in development programmes. Mainstreaming should mean that climate change issues influence core development activities and are accounted for in routine sector planning and budgeting activities.ʼ

Box 1.12: Current and future international public climate change mitigation finance flows in Indonesia ‘Committed and secured international financial support for climate change mitigation in Indonesia is approximately US$ 4.4 billion over the next few years, with EU donors contributing roughly 30% of total support. This roughly breaks down as US$ 2.94 billion in concessional loans, and US$ 1.44 billion in grants and technical assistance; US$ 3.48 billion in bilateral assistance and US$ 913 million in multilateral assistance. This has led to a large number of active donors (Figure 1.4), funding instruments (Table 1.8), and activities aimed at mitigating climate change, particularly in support for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) and renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.’

For instance, in India the JNNURM funds provide technical assistance for cities to plan and develop a public transport system that could form part of an infrastructure resilience enhancement program. [Check whether there is Bank or other IFI support for this program. Try to identify an EAP example]. 27 Coates N, Conway C and Calow R (2011) The ‘mainstreaming’ approach to climate change adaptation: insights from Ethiopia’s water sector, ODI Background Note

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific Table 1.7: Donor-supported funding instruments for climate change mitigation in Indonesia28

Figure 1.4: National landscape of international public finance in Indonesia

Peskett L and Brown J (ODI) International Public Finance to Address Climate Change in Indonesia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lessons for the Future of European Development Cooperation, EDC2020, EU Seventh Framework Programme

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 1.13: Climate change adaptation and mitigation funds and access for developing countries and their limitations At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties in Marrakech in 2001, agreements were reached to support adaptation initiatives through the use of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the establishment of targeted new climate funds, and other bilateral and multilateral funding. One of the funds established was the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Fund, which supports the preparation of National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA).29 Since 2001, a variety of additional climate change funds have been established to support both adaptation and mitigation. Currently, there are 22 funds with over $30.6 billion pledged (of which $10 billion has been deposited) for both mitigation and adaptation funding.30 It is estimated that the investments needed in developing countries to address climate change impacts generated by a 2OC rise in average temperature globally are in the range of $75 to $100 billion annually (in 2005 prices) 31, which is roughly 80 percent of present Official Development Assistance (ODA).32 Recognizing the need for urgent action, developed countries made pledges under the Copenhagen Accord (2009) to provide “fast funding” of $30 billion of new and additional resources between 20102012 for climate change adaptation and mitigation.33 The growth of funding sources, however, has created confusion about the funds, their purposes, mechanisms to access them, eligibility requirements, relationship of the funds vis-à-vis ODA, and their general financial terms and conditions. The manner in which the funds are managed internally can also lack transparency. There is a need to build the technical capacity to prepare and assess projects for climate change funding, including, for example, how to assess the impacts, calculate the expected losses, and attribute (or disaggregate) the losses due to climate change. The distinction between funding from ODA and climate change adaptation funds is important to developing countries for several reasons. ODA for economic, human and social development includes borrowing on concessional terms by developing countries and there are generally limits on what individual bilateral or multilateral donors will provide annually to a given country. Also, there is usually a ceiling for total combined assistance based upon the country’s borrowing and repayment capacity. Adaptation funds are grant-based and intended to be ‘additional’ to ODA.34 As described in a World Bank report35, Core Development investments for sectors like health, education, financial institutions, etc. would normally comprise domestic budgets plus ODA. Investments for Climate Resilient Development, which might include diversification in agriculture, climate resilient infrastructure, capacity building, and climate forecasting, among others, could draw funding from increased ODA and additional financing from adaptation funds. Adaptation investments, on the other hand, that address the negative impacts of climate change (e.g., increased storm and flood protection, storm shelters, and ensuring the reliability of water supply) would be financed through new and existing climate funds. In other words, adaptation investments have limited sources of funding, as they do not have access to ODA and can only be financed by climate or adaptation funds.

http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp Climate Funds Update web-site http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/graphs-statistics/pledged-deposited-disbursed 31 “Synthesis Report on the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study (EACC)”; Consultation Draft; World Bank; 3 August 2010; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCC/Resources/EACC_FinalSynthesisReport0803_2010.pdf 32 Flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25 percent (using a fixed 10 percent rate of discount). By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral ODA”) and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise disbursements by bilateral donors and multilateral institutions. Lending by export credit agencies—with the pure purpose of export promotion—is excluded. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6043 . 33 Climate Funds Update web-site http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/fast-start-finance 34 http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/adaptation-fund 35 Monitoring Climate Finance and ODA; World Bank; Issues Brief #1; May 2010; Table 2, pg. 5; http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/sites/default/files/documents/DCFIB%20%231-web.pdf 30

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

At the city scale, public-private partnerships are particularly important, both in the provision of infrastructure-based services and with the mobilization of private capital (domestic investment banks as well as international sovereign and private institutional investors) for realizing the commercial development potential associate with new infrastructure and transport connections (see Chapter 6). Mainstreaming resilience and hazard risk reduction could form part of the conditionality of this type of partnership-based investment. Box 1.14: Solo, Indonesia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Involving communities in relocation of riverbank settlement, creation of urban forest and improved citywide sanitation Heavy rain in Solo at the end of 2007 had caused floods in several locations with level of water reaching up to 2m high. The community had been facing such disaster regularly and they lived there for many years simply because they had no other alternatives for better and safer location for housing. The Municipality of Solo made approaches to community and related stakeholders convincing 300 households to be relocated to safer locations. Both local and national government funds were drawn on for this purpose. The previous riverside locations were recently converted into an urban forest. With the assistance of the UN-Habitat Slum Upgrading Facility, the Solo Municipality also has established a local finance facility to mobilize domestic capital for slum upgrading. During the first stage, 11 households received assistance in the form of micro-credit and land certificates. During the second stage the Solo Municipality developed the program with their own resources households in Kratonan received assistance for housing improvements/new construction, and public toilet-wash facilities. In the pursuit of improved and sustainable city sanitation, the Solo Municipality in collaboration with Public Works and BORDA (Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association) implemented the SANIMAS or Community-Based Water and Sanitation Program. The host community has been involving throughout the process, from selecting the location; mapping their own problems and needs; choosing the appropriate technology; construction, up to operating and maintaining the water and sanitation projectĘźs output (Bio-gas public toilets and communal waste water treatment installation) and system. Established in 2003, SANIMAS is initiated by the Government of Indonesia (GoI) and the Government of Australia (GoA) through Australian International Agency for Development (AusAID) and Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) World Bank. Currently, the program already takes place in 400 locations throughout the country, including Solo

WSPimc 8 July 2011 Draft only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Appendix 1.1 Outline terms of reference for mainstreaming urban resilience in an urban infrastructure project Steps to be taken with reference to the World Bank Project Management Cycle

TA inputs: Task

Expertise: (if commissioned)

Guide reference

Timescale:

Initial risk screening to identify priority/target city (or city-regions)

To be carried out joint between TTL and Borrower

Urban planning only if required

Appendix 2.1

1 day

Draw on existing national level hazard risk evidence and knowledge and knowledge of urbanization. If no baseline data exists commission expert national level natural hazard risk assessment and urbanization study using GIS with necessary stakeholder input.

Major study by counterpart government or commissioned.

Environment* Urban Planning* GIS* Governance Economics Structures

Chapters 1 to 8

3-6 months

Where there is no existing City Urban Resilience Context Study exists and the project is a one-off: Identify knowledge gaps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; commission review existing policies, legislation, urban risks and infrastructure investment strategies. Feeds into:

Small study (may be commissioned or carried out by by TTL/Counterpart)

Governance* Economics Environment Structures Urban Planning

Chapter 1

1-2 months

City-level workshop/seminar to identify areas and sections of population most at risk and possible infrastructure investment responses

Facilitate event/s

(included)

PMC2: Project identification

OR where a series of ongoing major investments are envisaged commission a full City Urban Resilience Context Study including:

4-8 months total

Identify knowledge gaps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; review existing policies, legislation and infrastructure investment strategies.

Small study (may be commissioned or carried out by TTL/Counterpart)

Governance* Economics Environment Structures Urban Planning

Chapter 1 Chapters 3-5

1-3 months

Commission a participatory risk assessment at the city region level including participatory risk assessments and policy recommendations.

Large study

Urban Planning* Governance Social/Community development Economics Environment Structures GIS*

Chapters 1-8

2-4 months

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific 3.

Devise urban resilience investment strategy for the city region

Facilitate event/s

(included)

1 month

Pre-selected projects â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Identify any knowledge gaps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; review existing policies, legislation and infrastructure investment strategies, if required. Set out project design standards.

Small study (may be commissioned or carried out by by TTL/Counterpart

Governance* Economics Environment Structures Urban Planning

Some reference to Chapters 3-8

1-2 months

Carry out participatory risk assessment of area affected by investment proposal, if not done at PMC2

Medium study

Urban Planning* Governance Social/Community development Economics Environment Structures GIS*

Chapters 1-8

2-4 months

Carry out a risk assessment of the project as part of the Environmental and Social Assessment Reports and obtain Board approval.

Bank or IDA task

Project level PMC3: Project design, assessment and approval

Chapters 1-8

PMC4: Project implementation Initial strategic planning meetings with city authorities, senior government officials, funding and support agencies and other key partners

Project management task

Initiate a platform for wider local stakeholder participation and collaboration.

Project management task

*Lead consultant or major input

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Natural hazard risk and the importance of mainstreaming resilience into urban investment projects in East Asia and Pacific The cities of East Asia and Pacific have always had to live with the threat of natural hazards. With rapid urbanization and climate change, however, the need to confront and plan for the associated risk to human lives and property has become urgent. The region has accumulated the greatest concentration of urban population and assets on earth, to a large extent concentrated in coastal areas exposed to storms, tsunamis and sea level rise, in river flood plains, and in some of the most active seismic zones in the world. This chapter details the threats and risks facing the cities of the region. It offers a basic introduction to how issues of natural hazard risk and climate change adaptation are understood. It describes a framework that can be used to understand how infrastructure projects fit within the different phases of disaster risk reduction and response, including recovery and reconstruction. Appendix 2.1 adapts the Asian Development Bank’s draft Risk Screening Tool for early risk screening purposes in the urban context.

2.1

Natural hazards and climate change impacts in East Asia and Pacific Natural hazards include hydro-meteorological events (weather-related – windstorms, floods, droughts, heatwaves). Climate change is expected to have a major impact in terms of increasing frequency, duration and intensity of such events in many regions. While the number of geophysical disasters – earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions – has fairly constant globally, the number of hydro-meteorological disasters has more than doubled since 1996. This may be linked to climate change as scientists predict global warming will result in more extreme weather patterns – stronger and increasingly violent storms, more rain and longer dry spells.1 The East Asia region is an area of heavy cyclonic activity and is doubly handicapped by the so-called ‘Pacific Ring of Fire’, the area of intense geological activity around the edge of the Pacific tectonic plate. This contains 75% on the world’s volcanoes amend accounts for the acute vulnerability of places such as Indonesia and Japan (and the western seaboard of North and South America) to earthquakes (see Box 2.1). Box 2.1: Vulnerability of the East Asia and Pacific Region2 • • •

•

• • •

The Asia-Pacific region comprises covers 52 percent of the earth’s surface area, 59 percent of the world’s population, and over 70 percent of the world’s natural disasters. Most East Asian economies are located in the Pacific Ring of Fire – home to over 75 percent of the world’s volcanoes and the source of 90 percent of the world’s earthquakes. The Asia-Pacific region is affected by weather phenomena such as the El Niño South Oscillation (ENSO) and its contrary weather pattern of La Niña, which have become increasingly apparent in recent decades. Tropical cyclones bring extreme winds and heavy precipitation. In coastal areas, storm surges accompanying these storms have historically killed hundreds of thousands of people. Floods, long a major hazard in China, killed more than 700 people in 2010 and caused $20.9 billion in economic losses. Flood flows are often magnified by high percentages of impervious surfaces, in the form of buildings, streets, and other paved areas, clogged drainage ways, and poor planning and other land use controls. Floodwaters also undercut slopes leading to landslides and mud and debris flows. The seismic belt south of Sumatra is one of the most active in the world and also the origin of some of the largest earthquakes in recent history. Earthquakes throughout the region continue to be major killers as evidenced by the 2008 Magnitude 8 Sichuan earthquake in China that killed 70,000, injured 374,000, and caused

Christian Aid, (2005) p.5). cited in Lloyd-Jones T (ed (2006) Mind the Gap! Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief, London: RICS 2 Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

• •

more than $85 billion in damage. In the years 2007-2009, Asia accounted for more than 95% of the 264,100 deaths attributed to natural catastrophes but only 8.4% of the insured losses. Recent floods in Queensland that swamped the city of Brisbane, two major earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand in quick succession, and the devastation of coastal towns and nuclear power installations by the earthquake and tsunami in North East Japan have brought upwards of $300 billion of economic losses to the region that are still being counted.3

Figure 2.1: Regional natural hazards map4 2.2

Vulnerability of the region The 20 countries in the East Asia and Pacific region (as defined by the World Bank) is home to nearly 2 billion people. 5 This wide and diverse region includes Cambodia, China, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Korea, the People's Democratic Republic of Lao (Lao PDR), Malaysia, Marshall Islands, FS Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. Virtually all of the countries are exposed to hydro-meteorological and/or geo-physical hazards of one form or another and many of the smaller island state are particularly exposed to rising sea levels associated with climate change. However, their vulnerability varies with the level of development and other factors such as urbanization. Section 2.3 describes the changing pattern of urbanization in

See Box 2.3. The cost of the Tōhoku earthquake to the Japanese economy are still mounting owing to the impact on power supplies. Queensland’s floods are likely to be the most costly in Australia’s history leading to a 1% loss of GDP in the short term, partly countered by a subsequent reconstruction-related boost to the economy. Reconstruction costs are put at $10bn. Sydney Morning Herald, (2011), Floods cause worst-ever economic damage, January 11 <www.smh.com.au/business/floods-cause-worstever-economic-damage-swan-2011011719t7x.html> 4 Source: Lloyd-Jones T (ed (2006) Mind the Gap! Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief, London: RICS and United Nations and World Bank (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank <http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/NHUD-home> if we get permission from the World Bank to use the original the right hand map could be used. 5 World Bank web site. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

major countries in the region but the feature of increasing levels of urbanization is common to all countries in the region, large and small. The map below indicates the geographical location, size and level of development of the region’s countries. Under the UN, all are classified as developing countries, although they range from lowincome countries such as Myanmar, Cambodia, the Lao PDR and the Solomon Islands to the Republic of Korea, which is classified as a high-income state under the World Bank Classification. By far the majority of the population (and urban population) live in lower middle-income countries such as China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Figure 2.2: East Asia and Pacific Region – income levels and urban population6 2.3 Vulnerability to natural hazards and patterns of urbanization Vulnerability is the Asia-Pacific region is closely related to urbanization, with the huge and increasing concentration of population in urban areas in coastal areas vulnerable to both climate-related hazards and rising sea levels and those, such as tsunamis, that are geo-physical in origin. Within this area are some of the largest concentrations of urban population and economic value on earth: massive urban agglomerations such as Tokyo-Yokohama (32m population), Seoul-Incheon (21m), Jakarta (20m), Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (18m), Manila (18m) and Bangkok (12m),7 global finance centres such as Singapore and Hong Kong and emerging ‘mega urban regions’8 including the Greater Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou, 50m), Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan (40m), and the Yangtze River Delta Region (Hangzhou-Shanghai-Nanjing, 90m) and Bangkok-Chonburi (20m). Urban growth in the next few decades will primarily be in small and medium cities, in particular along existing and new growth corridors.9 While the number of East Asian large metropolitan areas will grow

Urbanisation data based on UN website, ‘World Urbanization Prospect – The 2009 Revision’, New York, UN: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm> 7 Estimates of current populations based on R.L. Forstall R L, Greene P and Pick J B (2009) ‘Which are the largest? Why lists of major urban areas vary so greatly’, Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 100, 277 and Table 4 and United Nations Division of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm> 8 Geographer Terry McGee and his colleagues were the first to identify these regions in East Asia in 1998. See McGee T G and Robinson I R (1996) The mega-urban regions of Southeast Asia 9 Jha A K and Brecht H (2011) Building Urban Resilience in East Asia’, An Eye on East Asia and Pacific No 8, Economic Management and Poverty Reduction, World Bank WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

in number, most of the increase in urban population over the next 15 years will continue to be in towns and cities with fewer than one million inhabitants (many within the urban regions noted above). By 2015, towns and cities under one million will continue to account for well over half of the total urban population.10 It is estimated that by the year 2025, up to 40 percent of the increment in urban population in East Asian urban population (an estimated 200 million people) will be in peri-urban areas adjoining existing major cities.11

Figure 2.3: East Asia and Pacific: Percent of population in urban areas by country12 ‘By 2050, almost 1.5 billion people in these eight countries are projected to be urban dwellers, an increase of more than 640 million from 2009. The figure shows that the total urban population in these countries will more than triple, from 20% in 1980 to a projected level of 70% in 2050.ʼ 13 2.4 Urbanization and slum dwellers According to the UN14, in 2000, 192 million people in Eastern and 82 million in South Eastern Asia lived in slums – 274 million out of a total urban population of 721 million (38%). In 2010, the estimate was 279 million (189 million and 90 million respectively). In absolute terms, the rise in the number of slum dwellers in South Eastern Asia more than cancels out a slight fall in Eastern Asia, although the rise in total urban population to 959 million means that the proportion living in slums has fallen to 29%. This is in line with the strong economic performance of the region over this period as more people can afford to move out of slum conditions. In East Asia and the Pacific the proportion of people living in slums varies between 23% and 80% (UN estimates for 2008). As cities grow, the occupation of land reflects the economic power of different groups to command its purchase. The better off take the land that has the most amenity value and least risk of hazard. This includes areas that have a better microclimate and landscape character, free of any flood risk, upwind

UN-HABITAT (2010) State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009 - Harmonious Cities <http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2562> 11 Webster, D and Muller L (2004), ‘The Challenges of Peri-Urban Growth in East Asia: The Case of the China Hangzhou-Ningbo Corridor.’ in Enhancing Urban Management in East Asia, Mila Freire M and Yeun B (Eds). 12 Based on Jha A K and Brecht H (2011) It is assumed that illustrations from world Bank publications can be reproduced. 13 Jha A K and Brecht H (2011) 14 UN Human Settlements Programme (2008) State of the World Cities 2010/11: Bridging the Urban Divide Nairobi: UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), p32. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

of any noxious industrial activities, well-located in terms of proximity to the centre or well connected to transport and other infrastructure. Table 2.1: Numbers and percent of people living in slums in EAP Region by country Country

Cambodia

Urban population at mid-year by major area, region and country (thousands) in 2007

Proportion of urban population living in slum area in 2007 (* in 2005)

Urban slum population at mid-year by major area, region and country (thousand) in 2007 (* in 2005)

3,022

*78.9

2,385

China

561,251

31.0

173,988

Indonesia

116,832

23.0

26,852

Lao PDR

1,740

*79.3

*1,230

Mongolia

1,497

57.9

866.7

Myanmar

15,575

*45.6

*6,703

Philippines

56,503

42.3

23,891

Thailand

21,021

*26.0

*5,291

Vietnam

23,888

38.3

9,137

Conversely, ‘lower-income categories often live in areas with increasing risk levels, where housing and land prices are lower …Since poor inhabitants are less able to invest locally, these areas will also have lower amenities than safer areas.’15 This spatial structuring of the city is reflected in the investment in infrastructure that has a long life cycle (100 years or more) and patterns of connecting routes and block forms that can persists for centuries which makes it very difficult to alter. 2.5 Vulnerability to climate change effects Table 2.2 shows the prominence of East Asia and Pacific countries in terms of their vulnerability to projected climate change impacts. Figure 2.2 highlights the range of overall vulnerability to climate change within the countries of South East Asia. Table 2.2: Countries at risk from climate change effects16 Flood Bangladesh China India Cambodia Mozambique Lao PDR Pakistan Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam Benin Rwanda

Storm Philippines Bangladesh Madagascar Vietnam Moldova Mongolia Haiti Samoa Tonga China Honduras Fiji

Coastal 1m All low-lying Island States Vietnam Egypt Tunisia Indonesia Mauritania China Mexico Myanmar Bangladesh Senegal Libya

Coastal 5m All low-lying Island States Netherland Japan Bangladesh Philippines Egypt Brazil Venezuela Senegal Fiji Vietnam Denmark

Source: World Bank staff; Note: Blue shade indicates countries in East Asia and Pacific

Bigio A G and Hallegatte S (2011) Urban risk management, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction:: Planning, policy synergies and trade-offs in the cities of the developing world, 16 Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) ‘Building Urban Resilience in East Asia’, An Eye on East Asia and Pacific No 8, Economic Management and Poverty Reduction, World Bank WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.4: Map of index of climate change vulnerability in South East Asia17 2.6 Vulnerability of regional ecosystems Natural hazards affecting cities are closely related to the ecosystems in which they are located – coastal, including low elevation coastal zones, cultivated areas, dryland, forested and inland water areas and mountainous areas.18 Coastal zones tend to be the most urbanized ecosystems in all regions of the world. In Asia as a whole, coastal areas and inland water areas are more than 50% urbanized while other ecosystems are less. Because they are more extensive, however, cultivated ecosystems (agricultural land) support the largest urban populations. In China, ‘more than 85 per cent of the urban land area and urban population is located in cultivated ecosystems; China’s coastal zone, however, represents just 2 per cent of the total land area but is home to 23 per cent of the urban population of the country and 14 per cent of the total population.’19

Yusuf, A and Francisco H. 2009. 'Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia', Singapore: Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). <www.idrc.org.sg/eepsea/ev-149302-201-1DO_TOPIC.html> permission to use this map has been requested but not yet confirmed. 18 UN-HABITAT (2010) State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009 - Harmonious Cities <www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2562> 19 Ibid. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 2.3: International classification of natural hazards and related ecosystems

The Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) is the coastal strip less than 10m above sea level and is the area most vulnerable to sea level rise, tropical cyclones and tsunamis. It covers 2% of the world’s land area but contains 10% of the world’s population and 13% of the world’s urban population.20 In Asia, urban population is concentrated in the LECZ where urban settlements tend to be larger (for example all of the major urban agglomerations and mega urban regions previously listed) and economic assets tend to concentrated. Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show how many of the cities with the largest exposed populations and exposed assets are particularly concentrated in East Asain and Pacific (see also Box 2.2). The World Bank’s Economics of Climate Change Adaptation Report estimates that East Asia and the Pacific region has the highest annual cost of adapting to climate change amongst all six geographical regions of the World Bank.21

McGranahan, G., D. Balk and B. Anderson. 2007. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment & Urbanization 19(1): 17-37 (2007). International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/17 21

World Bank (2010), The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Synthesis Report

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 2.2: Vulnerability of coastal cities22  According to an OECD study that looked at 136 port cities around the world with populations exceeding one million, assets exposed in these cities to the potential impacts of climate change amount to $3,000 billion (or 5% of global GDP, 2005). By 2070, this could increase to $35,000 billion (or 9% of global GDP). 

By the 2070s, the Top 10 cities in terms of population exposure are Kolkata, Mumbai, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Bangkok, Rangoon, Miami and Hai Phòng. All, except Miami, are in Asian developing countries. 6 of the top 10 cities in terms of assets exposed are in East Asia and Pacific – Guangdong , Shanghai, Mumbai, Tianjin, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Bangkok – with a further two, Kolkata and Mumbai, in India. Hence, cities in Asia, particularly those in China, India and Thailand, become even more dominant in terms of population and asset exposure, as a result of the rapid urbanization and economic growth expected in these countries.23

Figure 2.5: Vulnerability of population of major port cities to climate change impacts by 207024

Adapted from Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) and based on Nicholls, R J, Hanson, S, Herweijer, C, Patmore, N, Hallegatte, S, Corfee-Morlot, J, Chateau, J and Muir Wood, R (2008), Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes, OECD Environment Working Paper Series, No. 1, OECD, Paris <http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/ranking-port-cities-with-high-exposure-and-vulnerability-to-climateextremes_011766488208> 23

Nicholls, R.J., S. Hanson, C. Herweijer, N. Patmore, S. Hallegatte, J. Corfee-Morlot, Chateau, J. and R. MuirWood (2007). Ranking Of The World’s Cities Most Exposed To Coastal Flooding Today And In The Future. Paris, France: OECD publishing, http://www.oecdlibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5kzssgshj742.pdf?expires=1285190021&id=0000&accname=guest&check sum=1EAA040044DB6464A51E74AFE061F915 24 Source: Adapted from Nicholls et al (2008) WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.6: Economic assets of major port cities exposed to climate change impacts by 207025 2.7 Valuing infrastructure investment in cities at risk Figure 2.7 combines city-specific population projections to 2050 for cities with significant earthquake and cyclone risks. Globally, the projected number of people exposed to tropical cyclones and earthquakes in large cities is expected to more than double by 2050.26 Defining the target cities at national level and types of project within those cities is a preliminary task to be undertaken before a city level investment strategy is prepared. As noted in Chapter 1, this can be derived from a specific study or draw on existing expert knowledge. It requires an analysis of concentrations of population and economic assets within the country concerned and of their degree of exposure and vulnerability to hazards, notably hydro-climatic and geophysical but also multiple and systemic hazards.

Source: Adapted from Nicholls et al (2008) Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Building Urban Resilience in East Asiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, An Eye on East Asia and Pacific No 8, Economic Management and Poverty Reduction, World Bank 26

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.7: Urban populations exposure to cyclone and earthquake: now and in 205027 A national scale risk analysis that takes account of the latest predictions of climate change impact for that country and region can be a starting point. The second level of analysis requires mapping the hazards at the regional scale against the density of population or urban land use areas within that area (which can normally be done fairly straightforwardly from available satellite imagery). As previously noted, hazards can vary considerably in their geographical spread, degree of intensity across their spread and likelihood of degree of uncertainty within a given geographic range. Hazard mapping involved giving some element of weighting to these different factors. Further mapping at the local, city scale would identify the particular areas at risk within a given urban area. Leaving aside the difficult areas of uncertainty and residual risk, from a resilience point of view the investor is looking for the maximum cost-benefit out of the investment, where the sum invested can yield the best return/maximum impact in terms of reducing exposure, vulnerability or the nature of the hazard itself. Large cities with substantial poor populations and subject to extreme hazards and slum populations living in precarious settlements within those cities are an obvious starting point. It is possible, however, that an investment in a citywide risk mitigation project in one (smaller) city might yield better results than investing the same amount in a number of smaller more localised slum upgrading or resettlement projects in another (larger) city. These are outcomes that need to be modelled at an early stage given the nature of population distribution and vulnerability characteristics and hazard distribution and exposure for the country concerned. The value of economic assets also needs to be taken into account in this assessment. Clearly, high value land will not be occupied by the urban poor so the investment aimed at protecting property may be adds with that focused on protecting people and poverty reduction. On the other hand, economic shocks impact more heavily on the poor than on anyone else so the protection of livelihoods should

Source: World Bank and the United Nations (2010) Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: the economics of effective prevention It is assumed that permission will be granted for reproduction of illustrations from World Bank publications.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

also figure highly in any risk reduction strategy. Any analysis along these in, then, needs to take account of the vulnerability structure of the local economy and an understanding of the role of critical facilities and infrastructure (see 6.14). 2.8 Typology of cities at risk As noted in Chapter 3, the size of official city populations, the number of inhabitants within the municipal boundaries, can act as a starting to point for determining city size and ranking. However, official city population is often no real guide to the size of populations in wider urban areas and regions. Therefore in the classification of cities at risk, the urbanized area or urban agglomeration should form the basis of the final classification (see Section 3.4). An initial typology by type of hazard is outlined in Table 2.4 below. Important functions of cities e.g. national or state capitals or prominent role in the national economy – ports, major industrial and commercial centres – may or may not be fully reflected in the ranking by population and should be taken into account. Table 2.4: Typology of cities at risk from natural hazards

Volcano

Landslide

Tsunami

Earthquake

Mudflow

Wildfire

Geo-physical

Extreme cold

Heatwaves

Drought

Flood

Wind storm

Hydro-meteorological

Urban population size Megacity: >10 million Large metropolis; 5-10 million Metropolis: 1-5 million Large city: 0.5-1 million Medium size city 100-500,000 Small city: <100,000 2.9 Cities as systems All of the following chapters in the guide, in one way or another, employ the concept of cities as systems. There are not simply economic, social or demographic phenomenon but rather a consequence of the human interactions with the natural environment The Asian Regional Task Force for Urban Risk Reduction (2008): Concept Note on Urban Resilience and Disaster Vulnerability in the Asia-Pacific Region suggests: ‘Resilient cities have two specific implications. First, the concept of sustainable cities focuses on the balanced approach of urban ecosystem, where there should be the equilibrium of natural and built environment. The other aspects of resilience should be reflected on the dynamic changes of risk. While risk is changing over time, it is important that the resilience should also evolve over time to reduce the impacts of disasters.’ In socio-ecological terms, ‘Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks.’28 At the centre of this definition is the notion of the maintenance of some kind of systems equilibrium. Following the impact of a disaster, the new equilibrium may be different from the old. Things almost certainly will not go on as before. Disasters will affect the way a city or region is governed for example

Walker, B, C S Holling, S R Carpenter and A Kinzig (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

(see Box 2.1). However, resilience ensures that, following reconstruction, a city recovers its essential functions, and indeed may make use of the changes wrought by disaster to flourish. Ecologists point out that in addition to the structure, function and processes traditionally studied by ecologist, urban systems also have components like social institutions, culture, behaviour and the built environment29 and that unique features distinguish urban systems from ecological ones like foresight and intentionality, communication and technology, learning capacity and norms and values.30 Figure 2.8 is one attempt to how these different spheres of interest work together. Metabolic flows reflect human economic interaction with natural ecosystems and built environment brings together the interaction of urban (man-made) and natural landscapes. Human and social capital are represented in the other two spheres of social dynamics and governance networks.

Figure 2.8: Cities as human ecosystems31 2.10 How hazard risk is defined According to UNISDR ‘a disaster is a function of the risk process. It results from a combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability, and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk’. The aim should prevent exposure to hazards or mitigate the impacts of any unavoidable exposure – at the very least to prevent hazards becoming disasters. At its simplest, risk then is a function of the probability of a hazard occurring and the vulnerability of the affected city and population: Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability. In practice the notion of vulnerability is broken down into a geographical or locational element – the degree of exposure to the hazard – and a core element of vulnerability that relates to human, social

Adapted from Grimm, N B, Morgan Grove J, Pickett S T A and Redman C L (2000) Integrated Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological , BioScience 50: 571-584.. <www4.ncsu.edu/.../Grimm%20et%20al%202000%20Bioscience%20.pdf> and (2008) Urban Ecology, Section II, 123-141 Springer <http://www.springerlink.com/content/m274pv4114715218/> 30 Holling, C S (2001) Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems, Ecosystems Vol 4, N0 5, 390-405, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 <www.springerlink.com/index/3bl3mqf74gc501av.pdf> 31 Source: http://www.resalliance.org/1610.php WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

and economic factors, independent of where people and their assets happen to be.32 According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “The difference between risk and vulnerability is an important distinction. Risk areas identify geographically (typically on maps) those areas most likely to be affected by a given hazard. People and resources located within the risk areas are considered to be at risk from hazards (exposed) and may or may not be vulnerable to hazard impacts. The vulnerability of the people and resources within the risk areas is a function of their individual susceptibility to the hazard impacts.”33 For example, poor people are likely to be more exposed, as they tend to inhabit more risky, precarious locations. They are likely to be more vulnerable because they have fewer resources to draw on to prevent a hazard becoming a disaster. Their houses, being non-engineered structures, are more vulnerable and at risk from damage increasing their own vulnerability, both to their life and health, and of the assets they own. In this model, risk (R) can be expressed as the probability of the hazard (P), multiplied by the exposure of people and assets (E) and the vulnerability (V) of the population or place where it will occur, or R = P x E x V.34

Figure 2.9: Risk Triangle35 Crichton (1999)36 described risk in disaster management as the probability of a loss that depends on these three factors. He represented this as a triangle (see Figure 2.9). The area inside the triangle represents risk and the sides of the triangle represent the three independent factors that contribute to risk: hazard, exposure and vulnerability. 2.11 How risk, capacity and resilience are related Coping and adaptive capacity Assessing the effectiveness of measures to increase resilience implies understanding the impact on risk to changes in the capacity of an urban system to respond to hazards i.e. what the measure of risk is before and after DRR or climate change adaptation measures are put in place. Overall measures that affect urban resilience include DRR measures, general reductions in environmental impact, climate change adaption (and mitigation) measures, plus measures to address emergency response and recovery. An increase in urban resilience implies a reduction in risk

The terms ‘biophysical vulnerability’ and ‘social vulnerability’ are sometimes used in the literature but there is no general agreement about their definitions. 33 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Coastal Services Center; Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT) http://www.csc.noaa.gov/rvat/hazardEdd.html 34 Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) ‘Building Urban Resilience in East Asia’, An Eye on East Asia and Pacific No 8, Economic Management and Poverty Reduction, World Bank 35 Middelmann M.H. (ed). 2007. Natural Hazards in Australia: Identifying Risk Analysis Requirements. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. <https://www.ga.gov.au/products/servlet/controller?event=GEOCAT_DETAILS&catno=65444> 36 Crighton, D. (1999) The Risk Triangle in Natural Disaster Management, Ingleton J. (Ed). Natural Disaster Management, Tudor Rose, London p.102-103. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

although this may be offset, partially or fully in the long term, by changes in the nature (frequency, scale) of the hazard, for example and in particular through the effects of climate change. According to UN/ISDR: ‘the strengthening of coping capacities usually builds resilience to withstand the effects of natural and human-induced hazards’.37 The lexicon of climate change uses the concept of adaptive capacity. This suggests that any change in urban resilience is a function of changes in hazard coping and climate change adaptive capacities:

ΔUR = f (ΔCC + ΔAC) Residual risk and the importance of disaster preparedness, emergency response and recovery Residual risk refers to the ‘the risk that remains in unmanaged form, even when effective disaster risk reduction measures are in place, and for which emergency response and recovery capacities must be maintained.’38 This is an important concept because there are always aspects of hazard risk that cannot be eliminated or substantially reduced. On occasions, it may be more cost effective to maximize emergency response and recovery capacity rather than invest in expensive structural measures to reduce levels of hazard risk that are hedged with a high degree of uncertainty with regard to likelihood of occurrence and scale of impact. An increase in urban resilience implies a reduction in risk although this may be offset, partially or fully in the long term, by changes in the nature (frequency, scale) of the hazard, for example and in particular through the effects of climate change. As USAID notes,39 ‘as hazards, exposure, or vulnerability increase, so do the risks of loss. Increasing adaptive capacity, however, reduces risks. When applied within a probabilistic risk assessment, loss-exceedance relationships can be developed and the EAL (Expected Annual Loss) calculated. Although the EAL is denominated in a currency, a similar process can be used to calculate the expected number of affected persons or the expected number of deaths. It is important to keep these other indicators of risk in mind, because sole reliance on a monetary value for losses can distract from poverty, environmental, cultural and social equity issues. The urban poor are often the worst affected. For example, based on economic losses alone, city planners might be drawn to protecting the wealthier sections of a city as opposed to slum areas which have assets of significantly less value, but possibly more people exposed.’ 2.12 Disaster risk losses Disasters incur tangible and intangible and direct and indirect losses. Tangible losses are those to which market values can be attributed.40 Intangible losses include those that are a direct result of the disaster such as deaths and injuries and indirect personal impacts such as trauma and disruption. Insurance companies may place monetary value against such losses but the nature of intangible losses is that the personal impact for individuals can be immeasurable. Tangible losses can be divided in direct and indirect. Direct losses include those resulting from the impact on a disaster on infrastructure, buildings and their contents. Physical planning can clearly have a major impact of reducing this kind of loss (see Chapter 5).

UN/ISRD (2007) Words into Action Ibid. 39 Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 486-11-027 Asia Climate Change Adaptation Project Preparation Facility (ADAPT), USAID/RDMA, Thailand 40 Middelmann M.H. (ed). 2007. Natural Hazards in Australia: Identifying Risk Analysis Requirements. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. pp16-17. 38

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.10: Classification of disaster losses41 The case studies illustrated in Box 2.3 indicate the range of contingent impacts and multiple losses both direct and indirect, tangible and intangible, that can arise from the occurrence of a major hazardous event such as an earthquake. Box 2.3: The knock on effects environmental and economic impacts of recent earthquakes – Japan and New Zealand The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (the ‘Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster’) which has cost 27,000 lives has incurred the greatest losses of any disaster in history. On top of likely insured losses of $20 to $30bn42, the Japanese Government early estimates puts the total cost at 25 trillion yen ($295bn) but the cost in loss of production due to consequent power shortages is still unfolding. 190,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed. Damage to transport, telecommunications, power and water infrastructure caused major disruption with landslides and dam failure adding to the chaos. Four of the region’s fifteen ports were destroyed with damage and disruption elsewhere. Factory output, consumer spending and exports have all been severely affected with a shortage of electricity supply and disruption to supply chains being a principal cause. One of the knock on effects has been the disruption to the Japanese car industry, not only in Japan but across the world, as the region was a major source of supply of car parts. The Japanese economy as a whole was tipped into recession, shrinking at an annual rate of 3.7 percent in the first quarter of 2011 with wider implications for the regional and global economy.43 An oil refinery caught fire and there were incidents at several of the nuclear power plants located on the affected coastline. The Fukushima Dai’chi (‘No 1’) disaster is the most prominent of these with the natural disaster leading on to a major industrial disaster, with air and seaborne radioactive pollution and potential pollution of ground water as knock-on effects. Six nuclear reactors were located in a single exposed location, within an earthquake zone, adjacent to the ocean, 220 km north of Tokyo with spent fuel rods stored on site in

Based on Middelmann M.H. (ed). 2007. Catastrophe modeling analysis by AIR Worldwide <http://www.air-worldwide.com/Press-Releases.aspx> 43 The New York Times (2011) Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Crisis, June 13. Accessed June 18. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/japan/index.html> 42

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

tanks above the reactors. Although designed to resist earthquake impacts, these out-of-date, planned to be decommissioned plants were put into a critical state when the tsunami wave put the power supply to the cooling system and the back-up diesel generators out of action. In a 1990 report44, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified earthquake-induced diesel generator failure leading to failure of cooling systems as one of the most likely causes of nuclear accidents from an external event.45 The report was cited in a 2004 statement by Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency46, but adequate measures to address the risk were not taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co. The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant highlights the challenges posed by failures of human management and decision-making and poses questions for the premise that engineers can always build sufficient redundancy into plant safety systems to overcome their inherent dangers. Although devastating for the city itself, the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand in February 2011 caused damage on a lesser and more localised scale with insured losses put at between $3.5bn and $8bn.47 The emergency response and early recovery was managed highly effectively with restoration of power supply within days. However, with a number of buildings in the central business district damaged. The city’s central area businesses have been disrupted and dispersed. Companies are concerned that they are not being allowed access by the authorities to undamaged properties and vital business assets within the affected area. The lack of a contingency plan and framework for reconstruction involving local civil society and business interests highlight the ongoing gap between focused relief and early recovery efforts and longer-term recovery and reconstruction.48 The financial losses and damage to economic assets highlight some key lessons for practice and tools that need to be part of any risk management plan. These points are picked up in later chapters as indicated: 

A better analysis and better-informed understanding of hazards risks and uncertainties; critical facilities in Japan were not designed for a event of such magnitude; protection against tsunamis was designed for a much smaller wave than the one that occurred, even though local historical evidence suggests that such huge waves have been experienced in the past. A robust decision making approach needs to be taken towards earthquake hazards (see Chapter 7).



In this context better use of hazard mapping to map industrial hazards and critical infrastructure and facilities (Chapter 8).



Land use planning and urban design to reduce exposure of people (including exposure of workers to industrial hazards) and assets; planning the location and exposure of critical facilities and infrastructure (Chapters 5 and 7).



Vulnerability mapping to identify those sections of the wider urban community likely to be worst affected in hazard-exposed locations, notably the urban poor (Chapters 5 and 8).



Better contingency and business continuity planning to reduce disruption and indirect f8nncial losses (Chapter 8).

2.13 Risk management frameworks There are many risk management frameworks currently is use in practice. The one illustrated in Figure 2.11 is particularly accessible and is drawn from the Australian Government 2007 report: Natural Hazards in Australia: Identifying Risk Analysis Requirements. Box 2.4 describes a risk assessment process that building on the Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerability model and translates this into a method for quantifying risk and losses and systematically identifying countermeasures.

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1150/v1/> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/japan-s-reactor-risk-foretold-20-years-ago-in-u-s-nuclearagency-s-report.html> 46 <http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/downloadfiles/g40614b50j.pdf> 47 Catastrophe modeling analysis by AIR Worldwide <http://www.air-worldwide.com/Press-Releases.aspx> 48 Report to the RICS Major Disaster Management Commission by Graham Matthews, April 2011. 45

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.11: Australia and New Zealand Standard Risk Management Framework (risk management standard AS/NZS 4360:2004)49

Box 2.4: Risk assessment model50 ‘The assessment of risk answers the following questions.    

What is the likelihood of the event? Who and what is in harm’s way? What are the projected losses due to disaster and climate change impacts? What social, economic and physical conditions reduce or amplify the impact?51

Quantifying risk and expected future losses is the first step in a disaster risk reduction programme (impact scenarios of a risk assessment are now also increasingly incorporated in other sustainable development approaches in order to climate- and disaster-proof infrastructure and development efforts in general). Once severity and geographical extent of risks have been assessed, appropriate and cost-effective countermeasures can systematically be identified. Risk assessments serve as input, for example, for investment prioritization, land use planning, building codes, and catastrophe risk insurance schemes. They support a wide range of decisionmaking processes for different actors from the public to the private sector.’ From the general risk equation it can be seen that the risk from natural hazards can be effectively reduced by reducing one or more of the three factors that contribute to it. While the Hazard component can usually not be changed and the Exposure component can only be partially influenced through land use planning, the Vulnerability component is crucial to reduce risks. This implies that reducing the risk from natural hazards embodies four sequential actions:

49 50

Middelmann M.H. (ed). 2007 Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

1. 2. 3. 4.

Avoid the hazard if possible, Invest in generating and disseminating credible information on hazard risk in cities Withstand the effects of the hazard, and Prepare for and recover from its impacts.

Figure 2.12: Standard risk assessment model (applies across the scales)52 2.14 A draft risk assessment tool for task managers The Asian Development Bank has produced a draft Risk Screening Tool that can be used for early risk screening purposes. Answers to questions in the risk screening tool, when totaled, generate a risk value of High, Medium, or Low. Where projects are deemed to be at medium or high risk, other risk management measures (such as climate risk mapping, vulnerability assessments to extreme events, risk reduction policies and practices) will need to be introduced during project design and implementation.’ As with a number of the tools and frameworks that have been examined, these are biased towards the rural development context and larger environmental scale and need some adaptation for the urban resilience context. We have carried out a preliminary exercise to adapt the tool to the urban reliance context. The full risk screening tool is reproduced in Appendix 2.1. The proposed changes are highlighted in red italics in the tables in that Appendix. 2.15 Characteristics of hazards Human-natural risk continuum It is widely accepted that so-called ‘natural’ disasters are always, to some degree, human-induced and not simple ‘acts of God’.53 Hazards always involve a combination of human activity and natural processes and form a continuum. At the basic level, a hazard requires human proximity to the phenomenon so defined – or inability, or whatever reason, to ‘get out of the way’.

Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011), Adapted from Kaplan, S. and B.J. Garrick. 1981. “On the Quantitative Assessment of Risk,” Risk Analysis 1(1):11–27. 52 Source: Diechmann, Uwe (2008), ‘Spatial ICTs for risk identification and risk reduction: Three geographic scales and three challenges’, World Bank, reproduced in Jha, A K and Brecht. H (2011) 53 United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 2.5: Human-natural risk continuum54 ‘Natural’

Temporary or intermittent human activity (agriculture, fishing, transport or movement, etc) involving geographical proximity to natural hazard leading to potential ‘natural’ disaster

‘human -nduced’



Permanent or ongoing human activity involving geographical proximity to natural hazard leading to potential ‘natural’ disaster (human habitation and settlements – importance of urban planning, structural design and enforced building standards) Hazardous human activity leading to potential ‘man-made’ disaster (mining, fire, conflict) which may or may not be enhanced by natural factors Human enhanced natural hazards (pollution; climate change; soil erosion; water stress) where human activity enhances degree of hazard over time.

Hazard-disaster continuum In a similar way the line between a natural hazard and disaster is not clear-cut. Exposure to hazards may have minor consequences that are not considered a disaster and, in fact, if all adverse impacts are permanently eliminated then the hazard ceases to exist. Therefore hazard-disaster should also be regarded as a continuum as follows: 1.

Hazard risk eliminated (no hazard)

Hazard impacts radically mitigated (disaster risk eliminated; minor impacts; short, low cost, manageable recovery)

Hazard impacts moderately reduced/mitigated (disaster risk persists but impacts are mitigated; recovery may take longer and/or be more costly but can be planned for)

Hazard risks not mitigated but planned response reduced impact during recovery (disaster risk with planned recovery; major impacts; longer, costly but planned recovery period with reduced risk of post disaster hazards and ‘after shocks’)

Hazard risks not mitigated and no response plan (disaster risk with ad hoc, uncoordinated response; major impacts; longer, very costly unplanned recovery period with enhanced risk of post disaster hazards and ‘after shocks’)

There a wide range of hazards that can afflict urban areas which can result in harm to person or property falling within the human-natural risk continuum indicated in Table 2.5. In most of this document we are referring primarily to hazards that are natural in origin but where risk from that hazard is subject to varying degrees of human influence over the exposure and vulnerability to, and notably in the case of climate change, the nature of characteristics of the hazard itself. Human-environment interaction in hazard impacts Certain ‘natural’ hazards, such as epidemics, are not dealt with to any extent here, although many of the mechanisms of disaster management, including urban planning to reduce environmental and public health risks in crowded urban areas apply equally to such hazards, suggesting they should be considered as a factor in urban infrastructure investment. Similarly with hazards that are almost wholly human origin in origin such as fire and industrial accident. Both types of hazard can be sparked off by natural causes where the after effects may be considerably greater than the original natural cause.

Source: Tony Lloyd-Jones, Max Lock Centre

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Clearly, also, natural factors can be a huge factor is deciding whether such a hazard initiated by a human action becomes a disaster. Weather can douse or spread the flames of fire – a bush fire caused by drought can be initiated by human carelessness. Radioactivity from a stricken nuclear plant can be carried towards or away from an urban population, depending on wind direction. Even destructive events that result from political and social factors like mass conflict can be constrained by the weather, or precipitated by response to natural factors such as food and water shortage due to altered or unanticipated weather patterns. Multiple and contingent hazards Hazards seldom come in a simple, singular form. For example earthquakes can cause structural damage themselves but also can trigger tsunamis and landslides. Furthermore the structural damage that they cause can also lead to further hazards e.g. dam failure and flooding. Poor environmental conditions resulting in the temporary accommodation for people displaced after the recent earthquake in Haiti contributed to the subsequent cholera epidemic. These examples can be multiplied. Given the complexity in the relationships between human and natural factors and the potential for interaction between a multiplicity of hazards, whether entirely human or entirely natural, or mixed, in origin, we have chosen to follow a simplified classification that highlights those natural hazards that are likely to have a major destructive (widespread or localized) impact on cities and their populations, whilst grouping all other hazards involving major human causal factors or ‘knock-on’ effects, as ‘systemic’ in nature. The hazard that are the particular focus of the guide can thus be listed under the following headings: 

hydro-meteorological (wind storms, floods, drought, bush fire, mudslide),



geophysical (volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, landslide)



multi-hazards (various combinations of hydro-meteorological and geophysical hazards)



systemic (hazards that are human in origin: conflicts, fires, industrial accidents; knock-on effects, multiple natural-human hazards and cascading effects and system-related impacts, health and disease)

Risk as a function of hazard probability and consequence The risk of particular hazardous events are assessed using two fundamental factors: 

Probability (anticipated frequency)



Consequence (impact on lives, livelihoods, physical assets, economy and natural environment)

The degree of exposure and level of vulnerability together with the nature and scale of the hazard combine to determine the consequences. This can be mapped as in Figure 2.13.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.13: Mapping risk against probability and consequence55 In considering the likelihood of a hazard occurring the issue of frequency is critical. Events that occur frequently, with or without regularity, within a short time scale must and can reasonably be planned for. Regularly re-occurring annual events (e.g. weather events such as monsoons and floods) are the most easily planned for, although even here the severity may vary and the days on which they occur may vary considerably. Since populations are culturally adjusted to regular events of this kind (for example in patterns of farming), when regular patterns are disrupted, for example through the impact of climate change, they may not be prepared and the consequences may be severe. Low-income countries and poor people are therefore far more immediately vulnerable to climate change than richer populations, which have greater capacity to adapt. Thus ongoing climate change is an immediate threat in particular to rural populations (and indirectly to low income urban populations that may rely on them for their basic food security) in regions beginning to be affected by climate change. Timescale and impact, probability and uncertainty The speed that the event occurs is also a critical factor, particularly in relation to early warning systems and planning for risk mitigation and disaster preparedness (Table 2.6). Slow onset hazards may give time to deal with them in advance, although frequently, though a hazardous event or critical threshold is evidently not imminent, its exact time of occurrence may be unknown. One particular type of slow onset event which may prove to be hazardous is climate change. Here both the time scale and consequences are very uncertain and this has sometimes been referred to as a ‘slow fuse’ event (possibly dramatic in their impact but with a long build up period). Disaster risk reduction and management focus on high impact hazardous events that are likely (with high probability often within a short term time frame such as cyclones, mudflows and floods) or possible but uncertain (such as earthquakes). Climate change adaptation focuses on hazards that are likely but with an uncertain, often long term, impact (‘long fuse’ events – see Table 2.5)

Diagram adapted, with permission, from an original by Ian Davis

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 2.6: Rapid onset, slow onset and long fuse hazards Low probability and low impact Rapid onset Slower onset Long fuse

High probability and low impact

Manageable hazards

Low probability and high impact

High probability and high impact

Earthquakes/tsunamis/ flash floods

Landslides

Floods/cyclones/storm surge/forest fires (can be forecast in advance) Droughts/climate change/sea level rise/changing weather patterns/desertification

2.16 Radical uncertainty and robust decision making The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami brought tragic consequences on a regional scale but without Japan’s extensive investment in risk reduction measures and development of a culture of disaster preparedness many more tens if not hundreds of thousand would have lost their lives. The event highlights the importance of recognizing the role of ‘radical uncertainty’ in planning for risk and resilience. Decision making under deep uncertainty implies need for ‘robust decision making’56 – decisions that are flexible, iterative, adaptive; that work under a wide range of future climate and geophysical hazard scenarios, allowing for unpredictable so-called ‘black swan’ events57 with cascading or escalating impacts.58 While some quantified, probabilistic assessment of risk is often possible (e.g. defining river flood plain levels of the basis of regular and periodic flooding; defining areas of earthquake risk in broad terms according to known geological conditions), major uncertainties always remain. Exactly where and when and major geophysical or hydro-meteorological hazards are threatened is seldom known much in advance of their occurrence, although early warning systems can help mitigate their impacts. Events with a high degree of uncertainly like the ‘1000-year’ Richter scale 9 earthquake in north Eastern Japan are both very unlikely and bring catastrophe consequences that are very difficult to plan for. As noted, the toll of casualties would have been far higher without high level of investment on risk reduction and disaster preparedness in Japan. At a certain level, however, it is simply not possible to invest enough to eliminate all risk, not matter how rich a country is, and hence there is a cut off in terms of the risk protection that can be offered. Historical perspective is used to determine the average frequency of major events of this kind but this can be misleading and induce a false sense of security. The city of Oxford in the UK, for example, recently experienced two ’40-year’ floods within the space of a few year leading a local member of parliament to complain: ‘Why did the Government and the Environment Agency get that prediction

Analytical methods for robust decision making (RDM) have been developed by the Rand Corporation – see Frerick S Pardee Center for Long Range Global Policy and Future Human Condition, Discussions on Robust Decision Making <http://www.rand.org/international_programs/pardee/methods/robust-decisions-2010.html>; See also: Lempert, R J. and Collins, M T (2007) Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Response: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches, Risk Analysis 27 (4), 1009–1026. Rosenhead, J (ed.) (1989)

Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty, and  conflict. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 57

Events of large magnitude and consequence that are outside the range of normal expectation, with very small, non-computable probability. See Taleb, N N (2010) The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, Second Edition, New York: Random House. The impact and after affects of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Eastern Japan is a classic example (see Box 1.4). 58 Decision-making under radical uncertainty is dealt with more fully in Chapter 8. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

wrong? These floods are not 1 in 40 year occurrences, since this has now happened three years in eight.’59 Making investment decisions about urban infrastructure in developing countries that minimize risk presents a number of challenges. Data on existing hazards may be lacking and any predictions about long term climate change is fraught with uncertainty. Projection of future development demands relies on uncertain trends and potential economic volatility or political instability. Under these circumstances, traditional analytical methods (risk analysis, cost-benefit analysis, operations research, and many other common planning method) that rely on selecting the best option for a given future (typically based on the median projections) and work well under reasonable levels of uncertainty do not necessarily fare well. ‘Robust decision-making (RDM) is a decision framework that presents an alternative to these ‘predict-then-act’ approaches. It ‘inverts the analytical steps that are typical of traditional analytic methods and seeks to identify choices that are robust over many alternative views of the future.’ The principle elements of RDM include an inclusive approach to scenario building and a computerbased analysis of multiple future scenarios. Box 2.5: Robust decision making (RDM): Relevant in stages of risk assessment and infrastructure strategy60 RDM is a decision framework for situations of high uncertainty, where traditional predict-than-act methods fail Its principles are It reverses the traditional analysis method, starting with a candidate decision Multiple plausible futures scenarios are considered to assess under which conditions the candidate decisions are vulnerable, independent of the scenarios' likelihoods. Robust decisions are chosen which perform reasonably well against a wide range of future scenarios without necessarily being an optimum approach to any possible future. RDM follows an iterative process (see Figure below): When a candidate decision has been selected its vulnerabilities to various future scenarios are assessed. Where available software and statistical tools create a large database of simulation runs to identify in which scenarios the candidate decision is performing poorly and what characteristics those have in common (scenario discovery). Modifications for candidate decisions, which address the vulnerabilities, can be assessed the same way as the original decision to generate trade-off curves. These trade-off curves can be used to define thresholds for probabilities which scenarios must be assigned for a modification to be adopted. Fischbach (2010)61 applied a limited RDM process to non-structural risk reduction methods in New Orleans. The study identified elevation incentives and a combination of them with buyoutseasements as strategies robust against future conditions. While the combined approach is identified as economically more beneficial but difficult to implement and currently not considered by hazard mitigation planners. In a next step external factors which can cause high damage irrespective of the mitigation measures were identified: coastal degradation; declining relative levees heights; population stagnation or growth, and participation in voluntary risk mitigation below 84%. The study suggests further RDM steps to develop strategies to address those vulnerabilities such as a linking elevation targets to FEMA's digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) and phasing in additional levers (buyouts) or neighbourhoods.

Oxford floods deepen as more rain is forecast, Daily Telegraph 26 July 2007 <www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558537/Oxford-floods-deepen-as-more-rain-is-forecast.html> 60 Source Lempert, Kalra (2011) 61 Jordan R. Fischbach (2010) Managing New Orleans Flood Risk in an Uncertain Future Using Non-Structural Risk Mitigation. Dissertation. Santa Monica. Rand Cooperation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

2.17 Natural hazard risk project management cycle The standard project management cycle, even where adapted for mainstreaming urban resilience purposes as in Chapter 1, is not flexible enough to deal with the emergency circumstances that occur when a disaster strikes. For this reason, extended assessment processes such as the Environmental Assessment Report are set to one side. However, for the purposes of developing urban resilience this situation is not satisfactory. What is needed is an additional long-term project management cycle that provides a framework to place any proposed infrastructure investment in the coordinated context of all the phases of disaster risk management, pre-disaster planning and post disaster processes. Table 2.7 provides the starting point62 This set of actions can be envisaged as a sequence of phases in the disaster management process, either side of the impact of a hazard, at the interface of emergency preparedness and response and post-disaster recovery. The aim of risk identification, assessment and reduction is to prevent a hazard becoming a disaster. The aim of financial protection/risk transfer and emergency preparedness and response and planned disaster recovery is to mitigate the effects of a disaster should it happen. Table 2.7: Phases in disaster risk reduction and response Fields of action

Sub fields

1. Risk identification and assessment

Risk and vulnerability assessment

• Studies, monitoring, models, maps, and information systems • Individual and societal perception surveys

2. Risk reduction

Disaster risk reduction

• Land use planning, sector planning, codes, legislation and regulations, public information, and education • Physical intervention in the territory: Corrective works, structural reinforcement, housing improvement, preventive resettlement, and infrastructure vulnerability reduction

Ongoing climate change mitigation and adaptation/

Ongoing climate change mitigation adaptation

Instruments

Sustainable urban development (reduced general environmental impact)

3. Financial protection

Financial protection/transfer

• Cash withholding mechanisms (funds, contingent credits, taxes, etc.) • Risk transfer financing mechanisms (insurance, reinsurance, disaster bonds)

Based on World Bank Resettlement Handbook, Chapter 1, p1, adapted from Rubiano and Ramirez (2009)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

4. Emergency preparedness and response

Emergency preparedness: planning for evacuation and post disaster response and recovery

• Early warning systems • Emergency and contingency/recovery plans • Response training

– HAZARD IMPACT –

5. Post-disaster recovery

Emergency response - postdisaster humanitarian relief

• Evacuation of the affected population, temporary resettlement • Technological infrastructure, communications, and logistics

Early recovery/transition

• Legislation and institutional organization • Reconstruction plans

Long-term recovery/reconstruction

• Post-disaster resettlement

Urban risk and resilience spiral In the context of this project management cycle, the aim of urban resilience is progressive improvement on existing conditions and development that aims at building resilience and sustainable urbanization. Rather than end up back at the same place at the end of the cycle, the aim to [progressively move forward and build on past good practice. A cycle moving forward in time becomes a spiral:

To get this idea of progression across, the management cycle is best envisaged in the form of spiral’ as in Figure 2.14 with the aim of diminishing the impact of any reoccurring hazard (and ultimately eliminating all disaster risk). This upward spiral represents the ‘build-back better’ approach where vulnerabilities and risks are reduced and wider (sustainable) development objectives are achieved in the reconstruction process. (Equally, it is possible to envisage a downward spiral where any reconstruction that takes place increases the vulnerability of the affected communities. Recent research in Tamil Nadu, India on posttsunami reconstruction indicates that the absence of effective community participation in the reconstruction process can result in just such a consequence).63 This conceptual framework for building urban resilience embraces disaster management, climate change mitigation and adaptation and is thus grounded in sustainability and the notion of human stewardship of the natural environment. In this sense we see disaster and climate change management being subsumed within a more broadly-defined field of environmental risk and impact management and the framework as a dynamic management approach to public policy in this field at the city (and city-region level).

Palupeti, R S (2011) Understanding The Role Of Culture In The Post Disaster Reconstruction Process : The Case Of Tsunami Reconstruction In Tamilnadu, Southern India, London: University of Westminster, unpublished PhD thesis. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 2.14: Resilience spiral: a dynamic framework for pubiic policy at the national, sub-national and city level64 2.18 Resilience in the context of recovery and reconstruction Many if not most governments have planned civil defense measures in place to respond to natural disasters and their immediate aftermath, as part of preparedness, and can count on international aid agencies to lend support should it be needed. However, the management of the longer-term recovery and reconstruction process is seldom planned for in the same way despite the fact that by far the greatest cost of a disaster is tied up in this phase of the process (see Box 2.6) An estimated 80% of the cost of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 related to the longer-term reconstruction effort, which, by and large was an impromptu response to post-disaster conditions as they were found on the ground.65 The UN/World Bank report Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters, suggests a fifth of all humanitarian aid goes on disaster, a figure that rose to nearly 60% in the year following the tsunami.66 Disaster reconstruction is invariably an extended process extending years, sometimes decades after the event. Displaced people can spend long periods in emergency accommodation (as in Haiti more than one year after the earthquake where tens of thousands are still living under canvas) or in transitional shelter that often ends up becoming semi-permanent. Media and public attention on the drama of the immediate post-disaster relief quickly subsides and these longer-term concerns fade into

Diagram based on Disaster risk management and response spiral in Lloyd-Jones (ed) (2009) The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response: A guide for humanitarian agencies, London: MLC Press <http://developmentfromdisasters.net> This version represents level 2 in the hazard-disaster continuum noted above (hazard impacts radically mitigated though not eliminated; disaster risk eliminated; minor impacts; short, low cost, manageable recovery) 65

TRN (2005) Review of the Tsunami Recovery, London: Development from Disasters Network and Development Planning Unit, University College London <http://developmentfromdisasters.net/> 66 United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

the background.67 Nevertheless, recovery is a critical part of the disaster management process, not least because it offers huge development opportunities and the chance of ‘building back better’. Disasters concentrate the attention of governments on disaster risk reduction where this has been previously neglected and the recovery period is clearly an opportunity to invest in risk mitigation measures. Public and political sensitivity to disaster risk is often reflected in greater public expenditure but also more volatility in the level of spending on DRR following a disaster.68 Additionally, reconstruction offers an opportunity for planned risk reduction and improvements to performance of the built environment in terms of climate change mitigation and adaptation Box 2.6: The World Bank’s post-tsunami recovery strategy for Aceh, Indonesia69 A Post Disaster Needs Assessment and Recovery Framework is a government-led exercise governed by institutional, legalized agreements between the World Bank, the UN system and the EC to maximize the coherence of their efforts. It pulls information together into a single, consolidated report detailing information on the physical impacts of a disaster, the economic value of the damages and losses, the human impacts as experienced by affected populations, and related early and longterm recovery needs and priorities. In the most recent examples of PDNA, resilience is integrated within the recovery strategy refined for each context under the following sub-headings: • • • • •

Risk identification and assessment Strengthening and enhancing emergency preparedness Institutional capacity building Risk mitigation investments for reducing exposure to natural hazards Catastrophe risk financing and transfer

The post-tsunami recovery strategy implemented in Aceh, Indonesia by the World Bank was evaluated in terms of its capacity to incorporate resilience into reconstruction and long term development priorities after natural disasters by comparing the activities carried out with the subheadings of PDNA and RF strategies listed above. It aimed at achieving five basic goals: Restoring people’s lives – clean water, roads, shelter and sources of income: This involved implementing labor intensive public works, such as cleanup and preliminary reconstruction; restarting small businesses that were ruined by the crisis by providing communities with grants and developing community-level training programs in ‘aid advocacy’ Restoring the economy – jobs, markets for daily necessities, banks that lend to small-scale enterprises: Economic activity was restarted by establishing credit facilities through commercial banks and channeling credit programs through cooperatives and credit unions; rehabilitating transport infrastructure; improving its resilience against disasters and its capacity for future growth, and by promoting micro/small enterprises. Rebuilding communities to give them social stability, a sense of orientation and local solidarity: Affected residents were encouraged to remain on-site or as close to their original property as possible. Other actions included promoting community-built housing; re-establishing coastal communities by starting-up grants and micro-credit and providing technical assistance and supporting displaced people-host communities through open community discussions. Restoring the representative system of local governance: Local governance and government were rebuilt to coordinate the stage of local needs assessments and local reconstruction plans. Other actions included establishing procedures to assist the police and other justice institutions to maintain law and order and developing a standard operating procedure for sharing financial information with communities, local governments, the province and central government institutions Re-establishing the province as a politically stable, economically vibrant, growth pole of

See Lloyd-Jones, T (ed) (2006) Mind the Gap? Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief, London: RICS <http://developmentfromdisasters.net/> and <http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/download_info.aspx?downloadID=1979> (English and French editions) 68 United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2010) Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters 69 World Bank (2005) The Consultative Group on Indonesia, January 19-20,. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Indonesia, resilient and protected against new disasters: A regional development program was promoted focused on institutional challenges for long term growth and post-conflict recovery, in order to cope with the significant changes generated by the disaster. The Aceh evaluation highlighted some of the gaps in relation to current PDNA/RF objectives. The goal of strengthening and enhancing emergency preparedness was not opportunely pursued. No activities focusing on catastrophe risk financing and transfer were performed and a proper phase of monitoring and evaluation was not conducted. In line with current provisions, an Environmental Assessment was not conducted in Aceh, thus not allowing future risk identification and assessment to guide activities. As noted in Chapter 1, while a Recovery Strategy needs to be put in place immediately following a disaster it should be flexible and adaptable, allowing risk assessment information from a resilience-focused Environmental Assessment to be incorporated as it becomes available. Co-ordination of effort is a huge problem following a disaster. Advances have been made since 2005 through the UN Cluster System and the PDNA/RF approach but this has only touched the surface of the issue in countries where a strong, government-led effort is not practical (post-earthquake Haiti, for example). A rigid, top-down donor-led, recovery strategy, however, is not the answer if recovery and reconstruction is to lead to resilience. Much more effort needs to go into developing effective and continuous feedback and flexible and adaptive coordination frameworks that can incorporate environmental (and social and economic) risk data as it becomes available and respond and build on the efforts of local communities and local NGOs 2.19 Key references: Good, up-to-date data on global disaster managements and risk reduction issues is available from a number of sources. Among the most accessible are the UNISDR Global Assessment Report On Disaster Risk Reduction (2011 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; updated biannually)70 and the EM-DAT web site, which gives data on scale of disaster losses.71

70 71

<www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/19846>) <www.emdat.be/>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Appendix 2.1 Adapting the ADBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Draft Risk Screening Tool to the urban reliance context The Asian Development Bank has produced a draft Risk Screening Tool that can be used for early risk screening purposes. Answers to questions in the risk screening tool, when totaled, generate a risk value of High, Medium, or Low. Where projects are deemed to be at medium or high risk, other risk management measures (such as climate risk mapping, vulnerability assessments to extreme events, risk reduction policies and practices) will need to be introduced during project design and implementation.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; As with a number of the tools and frameworks that have been examined, these are biased towards the rural development context and larger environmental scale and need some adaptation for the urban resilience context. We have carried out a preliminary exercise to adapt the tool to the urban reliance context. The full risk screening tool is reproduced below. The proposed changes are highlighted in red italics.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Physical Environment Risk Zones Natural Hazards and Climate Change Impacts Score Ecosystem

ADB

WB UR

Arid/Semi-Arid & desert environments

Low erratic rainfall of up to 500 mm rainfall per annum with periodic droughts and high rainfall variability. Low vegetative cover. Resilient ecosystems & complex pastoral and systems, but medium certainty that 10â&#x20AC;&#x201C;20% of drylands degraded; 1030% projected decrease in water availability in next 40 years; projected increase in drought duration and severity under climate change. Increased mobilization of sand dunes and other soils as vegetation cover declines; likely overall decrease in agricultural productivity, with rain-fed agriculture yield reduced by 30% or more by 2020. Earthquakes and other geophysical hazards may also occur in these environments.

1 or 2

Humid and sub-humid plains, foothills and hill country

More than 500 mm precipitation/yr. Resilient ecosystems & complex human pastoral and cropping systems. 10-30% projected decrease in water availability in next 40 years; projected increase in droughts, heatwaves and floods; increased erosion of loess-mantled landscapes by wind and water; increased gully erosion; landslides likely on steeper slopes. Likely overall decrease in agricultural productivity & compromised food production from variability, with rain-fed agriculture yield reduced by 30% or more by 2020. Increased incidence of forest and agriculture-based insect infestations. Earthquakes and other geophysical hazards may also occur in these environments.

River valleys/deltas and estuaries and other low-lying coastal areas

River basins, deltas and estuaries in low-lying areas are vulnerable to riverine floods, storm surges associated with tropical cyclones/typhoons and sea level rise; natural (and human-induced) subsidence resulting from sediment compaction and ground water extraction; liquefaction of soft sediments as result of earthquake ground shaking. Tsunami possible/likely on some coasts. Lowland agri-business and subsistence farming in these regions at significant risk. Urban areas in river flood plains and low lying coastal locations at particular risk from floods, storms, storm surges, tsunamis and human induced subsidence.

Small islands

Small islands generally have land areas of less than 10,000 sq km in area, though Papua New Guinea and Timor with much larger land areas are commonly included in lists of small island developing states. Low-lying islands are especially vulnerable to storm surge, tsunami and sea-level rise and, frequently, coastal erosion, with coral reefs threatened by ocean warming in some areas. Sea level rise is likely to threaten the limited ground water resources. High islands often experience high rainfall intensities, frequent landslides and tectonic environments in which landslides and earthquakes are not uncommon with (occasional) volcanic eruptions. Small islands may have low adaptive capacity and high adaptation costs relative to GDP.

Mountain ecosystems

Accelerated glacial melting, rockfalls/landslides and glacial lake outburst floods, leading to increased debris flows, river bank erosion and floods and more extensive outwash plains and, possibly, more frequent wind erosion in intermontane valleys. Enhanced snow melt and fluctuating stream flows may produce seasonal floods and droughts. Melting of permafrost in some environments. Faunal and floral species migration. Earthquakes, landslides and other geophysical hazards may also occur in these environments. Steep and unstable slopes in urban areas pose particular dangers from landslides and mud flows.

Volcanic environments

Recently active volcanoes (erupted in last 10,000 years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see www.volcano.si.edu). Often fertile soils with intensive agriculture and landslides on steep slopes. Subject to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions including pyroclastic flows and mudflows/lahars and/or gas emissions and occasionally widespread ashfall.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Project sectors risks (Selected examples only. If the project is likely to be affected by any of the risks listed below, use the score suggested. If it will not be affected, a lower score may be used at your discretion.) Estimated risk level Sector:

ADB

WB/UR

1. Agriculture & Natural Resources

Impacts on crop production or yield resulting from drought, hail, floods, tropical cyclone/depression winds and rains, storms, heatwaves, wildfires, insect infestations, widespread volcanic ash fall. Possible changes in diversity resulting from changing precipitation and/or temperature regimes Impacts on water availability for agricultural sector from El Ni単o, Indian Ocean Dipole and similar hemispheric weather influences Impacts from glacial melt flooding, or estuarine or delta-based flooding from storm surges or tsunami Impacts from salinization of soils by drought, storm surge or tsunami Impacts of changes to ocean currents, and on physical & chemical regime of oceans Impacts on land-sea interactions affecting sensitive habitats of marine species through changing water temperatures, increased incidents of marine pollution, greater incidents of coastal erosion, or incidents of algae blooms from warming of ocean areas Impacts on fisheries as a result of changes in migration patterns, fish size and availability Decrease in freshwater availability or adverse effects on quality due to drought or heatwaves, algal blooms, salinization by storm surge or tsunami, ground water rise or sea level rise. Contamination of or interruption to water supply (or electricity) resulting from flood, storm surge, landslide, tsunami or earthquake, Adverse effects on treatment plants from volcanic ash fall. Maintaining the agricultural hinterland of a city is essential in terms of security of food supply, water supply and other factors.

Very high (3)

2. Water Supply, and other municipal infrastructure and services

Accelerated glacier melt likely to cause increase in the number and severity of glacial melt-related floods, slope and river bank destabilization and a decrease in river flows as glaciers recede Maintaining a good, clean urban water supply is essential to survival. Disruption and pollution (e.g. from leaking sewage) are common effects of disasters.

Very high (3)

3. Education

School infrastructure is used for emergency shelter in most countries and should conform to the highest building codes and be sited as safely as possible with respect to all risks.

Very high (3)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

4. Health and Social Protection

Health infrastructure should conform to the highest possible building codes and be sited as safely as possible with respect to all risks. Morbidity/mortality (e.g., fractures or severe trauma, burns, malnutrition, diarrheal, cardio-respiratory, or infectious diseases) from earthquakes, tsunami, heatwaves, floods, storms, cyclones, fires and droughts. Changes in the distribution, frequency & burden of some vectorborne and water-borne diseases

Very high (3)

5. Transport & Communications

Damage to transport infrastructure due to earthquakes, volcanic eruption, landslides, sea-level rise, storm surge, or tsunami Port operations affected by sea-level rise, storms, storm surge, tsunami, wave action, strong winds, or floods, Overhead lines exposed to wind, ground shaking and liquefaction particularly in coastal areas, high country and on soft soils. Re-establishing transport links and telecommunications are essential to any recovery effort.

High (2)

Very high (3)

6. Energy

Rainfall variability, floods, droughts, landslides, earthquakes, or glacial meltwater floods impacting surface water flow and/or downstream water recharge Risk to oil and gas sector infrastructure in coastal locations from tropical cyclone winds and storm surge, floods, tsunami, earthquakes, or sea level rise Overhead transmission and distribution lines exposed to wind, ground shaking and liquefaction particularly in coastal areas, high country and on soft soils. Pipelines subject to ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, erosion Getting power supply back on is essential to any recovery effort.

High (2)

Very high (3)

7. Multi-sector

Subject to multiple risks similar to examples given throughout this table

High (2)

8. Housing finance and micro-finance

Housing infrastructure and small businesses are vulnerable to all risks listed in Table 1 or elsewhere in this Appendix (may require higher Risk Level for specific projects). Shelter vulnerability is the biggest threat in terms of loss of life in a disaster, particularly in urban areas. Urban livelihoods for the urban poor are often home based.

Medium (1)

Very high (3)

9. Industry and trade

All property can be affected by a range of the risks listed in this table. Diverse sector investment subject to risks and market interruptions (e.g. procurement delays, merchandise transfer disruption). Urban business/property assets represent a substantial element of total capital wealth.. Diverse sector investment subject to risks and market interruptions (e.g. procurement delays, merchandise transfer disruption) Disruption to industry and the urban economy is one of greatest costs of a disaster

Medium (1)

High (2)

10. Technical, vocational training and skills development

Limited direct exposure to the types of risks discussed here. Rapid training for recovery is essential but can be improvised.

Negligible Risk (0)

11. Finance

Getting essential financial resources from outside, translating these into outputs on the ground without excessive distortion of local markets and getting local credit facilities back on their

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

High (2)

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

feet are all essential to getting the urban economy working again. 12. Public sector management

The activities of local government can be completely disrupted or destroyed in a disaster and it is essential to get to protect these and get them up and running again as soon as possible as after as disaster a local focus of recovery efforts.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

High (2)

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Urban management and governance This chapter looks at policy work that needs to be undertaken at the city government level ahead of (or as a contribution from) any urban infrastructure investment project and the essential elements of governance that need to be in place to ensure that resilience is secured. This includes appropriate policies, laws and regulation, particularly those that relate to development and construction, and effective institutions and professional capacity for implementing them. For local governments to do their job well they need not only the impetus, resources and capabilities that come from sufficient financial, broad political and electoral support, but the active support and buy-in of a wide range of other nongovernmental actors. Throughout, but especially in this chapter and the next, the guide emphasizes the critical importance of involving communities and other key stakeholders in building urban resilience in the face of the growing threats from natural hazards. The chapter discusses new and emerging forms of collaborative and network-based governance that appear to be far better suited to mainstreaming urban resilience than traditional, top-down methods.

Overview 3.1

Definitions and criteria for measuring governance Urban management and governance offer the most opportunities for advancing the resilience agenda and present the greatest challenges to its implementation. A recent World Bank report, Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience for a Changing World, examines the linkages between climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor and highlights four key messages that emphasize the importance of effective city government (see Box 3.1). Box 3.1: Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience for a Changing World1 The key policy messages of this recently-published report are:  The urban poor are on the front line. The poor are particularly vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards due to where they live within cities and the lack of reliable basic services.  City governments are the drivers for addressing risks through ensuring basic services. Local governments play a vital role in financing and managing basic infrastructure and service delivery for all urban residents. Basic services are the first line of defense against the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.  City officials build resilience by mainstreaming risk reduction into urban management. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can be best addressed and sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management practices. Good practice examples exist and can be replicated in cities around the world.  Significant financial support is needed. Local governments need to leverage existing and new resources to meet the shortfalls in service delivery and basic infrastructure adaptation. In the guide, the term urban management covers the role of government and quasi-governmental public agencies in administering the affairs of the city, specifically in this case planning for and managing the risk from natural hazards. However, governance as a concept recognizes that power exists inside and outside the formal authority and institutions of government. It emphasizes process and recognizes that decisions are made based on complex relationships between many actors with different priorities in government, the private sector and civil society.2

<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT /0,,contentMDK:22923088~menuPK:337184~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html>

UN-Habitat Global Campaign on Urban Governance http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=1537

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

The processes of governance, and the social institutions created by it, vary from place to place, sector to sector and problem to problem. Newly focused problems, such as creating resilience to natural disasters in urban areas, require the creation of new governance processes and social institutions to oversee the deployment of relevant and effective technologies.3 Measuring ‘good governance’ is a challenging task, particularly at the local level where data is often lacking but some broadly accepted criteria and possible indicators are given in Box 3.2. Box 3.2: Norms and indicators of ‘good’ urban governance4 The UN-Habitat Campaign for Urban Governance defines a set of eight norms or criteria for ‘good’ urban governance. Some potential indicators are suggested in brackets and sources for these are given in the footnote below.5 Data (e.g. for the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators) is often only available at national (sometimes at the state) level and may need to be adapted, interpolated and interpreted to the local city context. Subsidiarity: Decisions taken as far as possible by those immediately affected, given sufficient resources and understanding on the issues; decision-making at the closest level consistent with efficient and cost-effective delivery of services. This requires appropriate supporting legislation, transparent resource transfer by central government peer-to-peer learning and innovative measures such as participatory budgeting – see Box 5… (Indicators: decentralization/local government legislation; local authority budgetary data including transfers from central government) Sustainability: Balancing the social, economic and environmental needs of present and future generations. Integrating urban poverty reduction strategies into local development planning. Undertaking consultations with stakeholders and communities to agree on a broad-based, mission statement and long-term strategic vision for the city, using tools such as City Development Strategies6 and the Eco2 framework (see Box 3.6). (Sustainable Development Indicators; urban poverty measures; numbers living in slums) Equity: Ensuring equal access to resources and the basic conditions of for all members of society, including gender equality and social inclusion for all disadvantaged groups. This may require specific measure such as quotas to ensure women have equal access to decision making. Legislation and regulatory frameworks should not discriminate against the poor. (Indicators: Gini coefficient, urban land tenure laws and administration, policies and byelaws governing informal trading) Civic engagement and citizenship: ensuring that all inhabitants enjoy full rights as citizens. This includes the right to freedom of association, to information, to participate in debate and actively contribute to the common good, through representative and participatory local democracy, or other innovative consultative mechanisms. Requires capacity building and empowerment, the space for advocacy and the provision of information by civil society organizations. (Worldwide Governance indicator: Voice and Accountability; local voter participation; see also Subsidiarity indicators) Transparency and accountability: in all aspects of decision making, in particular those involving the transfer of resources or which are open to corruption and the promotion of self interest; mapping

Interview with Dr Judith Allen, housing and local governance expert. The editor is grateful for her advice on links to recent thinking on collaborative governance. 4 UN-Habitat, Global Campaign on Urban Governance. <http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=2> See also: United Nations ESCAP. What is good governance <http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp> and Access to basic services: the importance of good governance <http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/access-tobasic-services.asp> 5 Worldwide Governance Indicators: <http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp;> Global City Indicators Facility <http://www.cityindicators.org/> (‘Indicators are currently being entered by all of the new member cities and once the data has been reviewed and checked internally, cities will start making their data publicly available.’). See also de Villa, V and M Westfall (2002) Urban Indicators for Managing Cities: Cities Data Book. ADB. A sourcebook of methodologies for urban indicators for Asian cities. Purchase or download from <http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Cities_Data_Book/default.asp>; UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory <http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=646> 6

For methods and projects – see Cities Alliance, City Development Strategies (CDS) <http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/cds> 7 See UN-Habitat, Tools to support transparency in local governance. <http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=1126> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

the assets and resources available to communities and governments. All in positions of responsibility to be accountable to those they represent using standard ‘due process’ procedures, codes of conduct, service delivery agreements and innovative measures such as Report Cards (see Chapter 5).7 (Worldwide Governance Indicator: Control of Corruption; review of local government procedures) Efficiency of government and provision of public services: Cities must be financially sound and cost-effective in their management of revenue sources and expenditures, the administration and delivery of services, and in the enablement, based on comparative advantage, of government, the private sector and communities to contribute formally or informally to the urban economy. Innovative partnerships are one way of dealing with this. (Worldwide Governance Indicator: Government Effectiveness; reviews of local service delivery) Security: Insecurity has a disproportionate impact in further marginalizing poor communities. Cities must strive to avoid human conflicts and natural disasters by involving all stakeholders in crime and conflict prevention and disaster preparedness. Security also implies freedom from persecution, forced evictions and provides for security of tenure. (Worldwide Governance Indicator: Political Stability and Absence of Violence; city level crime data; see also Equity indicator)

3.2

Obstacles to implementing urban resilience There is always room for improvement in the institutional, policy and regulatory framework, even in advanced economies where policy lags behind advances in scientific knowledge. However, even when legislation is in place to manage urban risk, and especially in developing countries, there is often a looming gulf between what is laid down in law and the capacity of local governments to implement it on the ground. Many institutional problems arise out of poor inter sector department co-ordination and poor coordination between the different levels of government. Most countries have at least three layers of government – national, sub-national (state, province or regional) and local or municipal. Some have more. This presents real challenges for policy coordination and the flow of information in what are primarily top-down, hierarchical arrangements. The OECD’s recently published book Cities and Climate Change (2010) suggests that a framework for understanding the linkages across multiple levels of government and with the private sector and non-governmental stakeholders is needed. The OECD’s proposed framework explores the linkages between national, regional and local policies to address climate change. It identifies ‘vertical governance between different levels of government, as well as horizontal governance across multiple sectors at the same level of government, including engagement with non-governmental actors, and governance across and between cities or territories.’8 Such a framework is useful for understanding and encouraging the develop net of more collaborative and networked forms of governance operating across the different levels and sectors that are described below. Larger urban areas command more resources (megacities notably so) and municipalities that are mainly rural in character and/or centered on smaller settlements are in the weakest and most vulnerable situation. Nevertheless, almost everywhere there is an imbalance between central powers and local resources, with measures to decentralize and strengthen local government seldom matched by the resourcing to achieve its aims (Box 3.3). Box 3.3: Constraints on implementing disaster risk reduction (DRR) at the local level9 ‘Weak institutional arrangements: In most developing countries, legislative and institutional arrangements inhibit rather than enable local action. While it is recognized that disasters are initially local events, accountability, authority and resources are not sufficiently decentralized to enable local governments to assume ownership and take actions to manage disaster risk effectively. Lack of political feasibility: Politicians, administrators, and community leaders all face conflicting priorities, and DRR almost invariably takes the back seat to other needs which may be considered more pressing or easier to solve. Risk is not managed preemptively, but thought of in terms of

Nicholls, R J, Hanson, S, Herweijer, C, Patmore, N, Hallegatte, S, Corfee-Morlot, J, Chateau, J and Muir Wood, R (2010) Cities and Climate Change <http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34361_46573474_1_1_1_1,00.html#keypolicyissues> 9 Source: Bendimerad, F (2009) State-of-the-Practice Report on Urban Disaster Risk Management, EMI OpenFile Report, June 2009 WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

something to be dealt with when disaster strikes through emergency response and humanitarian assistance. Further, the inadequate of experience, methodology and standards for benchmarking make DRR an unattractive proposition for local officials. Insufficient knowledge, experience and capacity: Disaster risk reduction is complex, and few administrators have experienced implementing DRR initiatives. It takes time, effort, tools, and training to assimilate disaster risk reduction in city functions and ongoing operations. Significant deficiencies remain throughout cities and megacities in terms of inter-institutional coordination, warning systems, incident command and control, resources for response, relief, recovery, and rehabilitation practice. An additional weakness relates to the project planning processes of government. While concepts are often understood and policies are in place, carrying these policies and concepts to practice is a major hurdle for government at all level. Even among cities which have shown competency in establishing planning processes to control their physical development, carrying these planning processes into project planning and execution remains a challenging step.’ If local authorities are poorly-resourced they will lack the capacity to ensure citizen involvement in the risk reduction planning process and may remain locked in a defensive, top down mindset. Stakeholder consultation and community involvement are essential to ensure the buy-in necessary for effective implementation. Local democracy, where it exists, is a cornerstone of good governance at the local level. A summary of good practice principles for managing urban risk and governing for resilience in Box 3.4 and provide a basis for the policy recommendations and task manager checklist at the end of this chapter. Box 3.4: Managing urban risk and governing for resilience – summary of principles10  Ensure urban risk and resilience is addressed as a cross cutting issue in all relevant sector policies: disaster management, climate change, environment, housing an urban development, energy, industry, etc. (see Section 1.11).  Strengthen the performance of local government in building urban resilience through decentralization and subsidiarity. Collect the relevant data and monitor improvements in local governance over time.  Invest in building resilience at the city level: city governments are the drivers for addressing hazard risks through ensuring basic services. Local governments play a vital role in financing and managing basic infrastructure and service delivery for all urban residents and need effective financial support.  Focus on the urban poor: Provision of good basic services are the first line of defense against the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.  Aim to mainstream resilience and risk reduction into urban management and planning: Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can be best addressed and sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management practices.  Make effective use of decentralized co-operation: good practice examples of risk reduction and resilience exist in cities around the world and can be replicated with sufficient attention to the local context. New sources of funding may be tapped into.  Develop national and international protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience and risk and benchmarking risk reduction performance nationally, regionally and globally: Develop indicators and measure urban resilience to leverage public and private development finance for critical infrastructure investment and measure results-based urban management in risk reduction and long term planning for resilience.  Prepare a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience.  Adopt a city-region approach to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk: this enables cities to realize the synergies and benefits of whole urban system integration. Prioritization, sequencing, and effectiveness of investments in sustainability and resiliency are all enhanced by understanding the city-region as a single system.

Developed from the Eco checklist – see Section 3.12.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 Establish an inclusive investment framework and related metrics for risk assessment: This should incorporate lifecycle analysis and the value of all capital assets (manufactured, natural, human, and social), and a broader scope of risk assessments in decision-making.  Invest in risk data collection, information and knowledge dissemination and exchange: undertake participatory/professional surveys, city level databases and public information and interactive communication systems; make use of mass media for awareness raising; avoid information overload.  Invest in training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at community level; develop training and awareness of local professionals and government officials.  Forecast the impacts of plausible changes in climate, markets, resource availability, demographics, and technology: host a forecast workshop. Explore stakeholder scenarios for robust decision-making.  Learn from pilot projects and adapt to improve performance: The best way to learn the accounting methods is through a pilot or catalyst project; a base case scenario may be developed as a benchmark for comparing alternative approaches

3.3

Emerging forms of urban governance for resilience Collaborative governance: participation and partnership are essential particularly in realizing urban infrastructure investment projects with their localized impacts. It remains the case that, despite decades of advocacy in this area and the general acceptance of its premises across the field of development there is still a long way to go. This key aspect of governance is dealt with in this chapter and the one that follows In recent decades, a new form of ‘collaborative governance’ has emerged that ‘brings public and private stakeholders together in collective forums with public agencies to engage in consensusoriented decision-making’. 11 Collaborative governance promises to ‘avoid the high costs of adversarial policy making, expand democratic participation, and (even) restore rationality to public management’.12 There are, of course, serious obstacles to implementing such an approach and, in Chapter 4, the guide outlines some tools that can help overcome these. These obstacles include:13  Significant differences in the power of stakeholders; powerful stakeholders can manipulate the process;  Stakeholders’ organizational capacity to participate meaningfully;  Availability of leadership to guide the process through difficult phases;  A lack of commitment by public agencies;  Lack of time;  Lack of trust;  Conflicts of interest;  Lack of incentives for stakeholders. Collaborative approaches can be institutionalized and well funded but stakeholder participation is typically voluntary and time consuming.14 The incentives depend on the expectation of positive and timely results. ‘Incentives to participate are low when stakeholders can achieve their goals unilaterally or through alternative means.’ 15

Ansell, C and A Gash (2007) Journal of Public Administration 18 543-571 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Financial compensation for participation is sometime practiced but brings problems of ‘professionalization’ and isolation of community representatives from their constituency. Private sector and civil society organizations normally have their own sound and practical reasons for participating but a balance needs to be maintained between the appeal to public spiritedness, constraints of time, and the ‘what’s-in-it-for me’ factor. 15 Ansell, C and A Gash (2007) 12

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Remedial trust building, in particular, is critical but requires considerable time. Collaborative governance is not effective when agencies must make or implement decisions quickly. However, upfront investment in effective collaboration can achieve considerable savings in downstream implementation.16 Once a working consensus is achieved the process speeds up. There is a danger, however, in coming to the table with all the key strategic decisions in place and reducing the process to token participation. Therefore, policy makers must tread a fine line between strategic expediency and effective implementation. One possibility is to make the process partly open-ended, whereby some of the (possibly less critical) decisions from earlier strategic phases are left for discussion by new participants, as they come on board. Trust in government to make wise decisions in the earlier strategic investment phases can help facilitate trust in the wider participatory process of action planning further down the line, hence the importance in strengthening the institutions of local democratic government and urban management. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The collaborative process is cyclical or iterative rather than linear. Collaboration depends on achieving a virtuous cycle between communication, trust, commitment, understanding, and outcomes.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;17 (See Box 3.5).

16 17

ibid. Ibid.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 3.5: The basis of effective collaboration18  Face-to-face dialogue: All collaborative governance builds on face-to-face dialogue between stakeholders, essential, though not sufficient on its own, for building consensus, trust and mutual respect  Building trust (including remedial trust building): Lack of trust among stakeholders is a common starting point for collaborative governance and building trust among stakeholders is an important as negotiation.  Commitment to the process: Weak commitment of public agencies to collaboration is often a problem  Shared understanding and finding a common mission: This will normally require facilitation to overcome conflicts of interest and find a consensus.  Intermediate outcomes: quick, if small, concrete gains make collaboration more likely. Networks and new forms of adaptive governance: ‘Collaborative policy processes are increasingly in use as ways of achieving results in an era distinguished by rapid change, social and political fragmentation, rapid high volume information flow, global interdependence, and conflicting values.’19 Add to this the challenges of rapid urbanization and the uncertainties of climate change and the need for new and more flexible and adaptive forms of governance for resilience takes on a growing urgency. Networks have a key role to play in this. Networks are defined as ‘open, dynamic and selforganizing social systems’ with sets of well-interconnected actors sharing communicative codes, values or goals.20 Their key characteristic is a ‘flow of (informational) power in which participants all share.’21 Networks are an increasing feature of governance everywhere. The greatly enhanced capacity to share information and knowledge that comes with information and communications technologies stimulates has facilitated this expansion, including networks that relate to management of risk and governance of infrastructure assets (see Box 3.5). Resilience embodies the idea of ‘adaptive capacity’ and a ‘measure of how well people and societies can adapt to a changed reality and capitalize on the new possibilities offered.’22 Top-down hierarchical power systems, as governments tend to be, lack this kind of adaptability. Inter-sector departmental coordination and working is often weak. ‘Horizontal’ linkages may be absent and information flows up and down through the hierarchy are often lengthy and frictional. Any pressures beyond which is normally planned for and accommodated quickly reveals the systemic weaknesses and lack of adaptability of such governance structures. The European Union (EU), for example has made increasing use of the what it terms soft modes of governance (SMG), ‘modes based on voluntary and non-sanctioning forms of public action, where state and non-state actors interact in extensive networks to solve complex social problems.’ 23 This includes various forms of EU-funded partnership that raise potential concerns of legitimacy and accountability where ‘unaccountable private actors play key roles and sometimes manage to escape

Adapted from Ansell, C and A Gash (2007). Booher D E and J E Innes (2002) Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21:221-236. <http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/21/3/221> 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Paton, D, and D Johnston (2006) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USA. 23 Borrás, S & Conzelmann, T (2007) Democracy, Legitimacy and Soft Modes of Governance in the EU: The Empirical Turn. European Integration Vol. 29, No. 5, 531–548, December 2007 19

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific from public oversight.’24 Where public finance is being made available, this draws attention to the need to put in place effective measures to address such concerns in these new forms of governance. Networks are not noted for their efficiency. They need resources, extensive time inputs and proper management if they are to be effective and sustained. While the Internet and various forms of social networking and web-based knowledge exchange greatly extends their capacity and responsiveness, there is a pervasive and growing problem of information overload and occasional face-to-face meetings remain important for maintaining their social sustainability. Where members are geographically spread out this can involve substantial costs in travel, subsistence and time and there is the perennial danger of ‘talking shops’ that produce little in the way of concrete outputs. Nevertheless, this form of networking is important in paving the way in the longer term for more durable alliances, partnerships, innovative forms of practice and ultimately new social institutions. These are potential benefits that cannot necessarily be foreseen but give networks there robust and adaptive character. The operational management and governance of large infrastructure systems offers particular opportunities for new forms of flexible and adaptive governance. The CALFED study (Box 3.6) highlights the benefits but also ongoing tension and turbulence that result from self-organizing governance processes operating in a context of traditional governance. Box 3.6: CALFED – an adaptive management and collaborative governance approach to California’s water planning and management25 ‘A study of California’s water planning and management process, known as CALFED, offers insights into governance strategies that can deal with adaptive management of environmental resources in ways that conventional bureaucratic procedures cannot. CALFED created an informal policy-making system, engaging multiple agencies and stakeholders….CALFED can be seen as a self-organizing complex adaptive network (CAN) in which interactions were generally guided by collaborative heuristics. The case demonstrates several innovative governance practices, including new practices and norms for interactions among the agents, a distributed structure of information and decisionmaking, a nonlinear planning method, self-organizing system behavior, and adaptation. An example of a resulting policy innovation, a method to provide real-time environmental use of water while protecting a reliable supply of water for agricultural and urban interests, is described.’

Box 3.7: Summary of principles of collaborative governance for risk reduction and resilience  Engage in multi-stakeholder development of land use plans and codes: urban and regional plans and building codes or standards which respond to the needs of multiple stakeholders are more likely to be adopted and result in overall risk reduction.  Develop network-based governance including multiple and overlapping networks: Contribute to building a broad collaborative platform and a common vision that works at the corporate, municipal, and the city-regional levels.  Develop inter-city collaboration: Look to develop and institutionalize inter-city collaboration of infrastructure investment and service delivery in economically and ecologically defined cityregions.  Secure leadership and commitment: Identify local champions and ensure the necessary commitment from central, sub-national and local government. International investment in infrastructure provision can be a strong driver, but extra effort may be needed.  Involve all key stakeholders: make sure that the full range of stakeholders relevant to the project area, scope and focus are represented and included in the decision-making process, including those relating to long-tem management of assets.  Incentivize and develop a broad-based stakeholder commitment to collaborative

Ibid. Booker, D E and J E Innes (2010) Governance for Resilience: CAL FED as a Complex Adaptive Network for Resource Management. Ecology and Society 15(3): 35. Published under license by the Resilience Alliance. <http://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol15/iss3/art35/>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

governance and building consensus through face-to-face dialogue, building trust, shared understanding, and establishing a common mission: stakeholders need to see tangible benefits. Aim for quick wins and intermediate outcomes.  Allocate sufficient time and resources: the collaborative process is iterative and should. Within reason, open-ended allowing stakeholders to engage in strategic decision-making where possible. Investment in upstream collaboration delivers downstream benefits.  Provide facilitation, management and /administrative support and employ transparent accounting procedures: ensure financial sustainability where there are outside funding sources, stability, durability and efficiency where longer-term collaborative governance structures are envisaged.

3.4

The city-region provides the spatial context for operationalizing risk at the project level By city we are usually referring to urban ‘agglomerations’ (continuous urbanized areas - see the UN’s World Urbanization Prospects for definitions26). In most places, there is seldom a single authority to cover concentrations of population so defined (with China in general being a notable exception). Maps are needed to show the relevant municipal boundaries and efforts of adjacent local authority areas will need to be coordinated. Moreover, all cities depend on their rural hinterlands for vital ecosystem services. Defining the geographical scope of urban projects and their relationship to local administrative boundaries is key to managing environmental risk. For example, local flood control measures need to be coordinated with larger river basin management to be effective. National and regional scale governance and government agencies may be critical. The guide strongly recommends that the city regional scale be adopted as the spatial framework for dealing with issues of reducing risk and building urban resilience in East Asia and Pacific where many large regional urban systems are evident. The city regional scale has long been regarded as the most appropriate level at which to plan for the sustainable development of a city. The increasing focus on climate change and natural hazard risk makes it ever more critical to consider this dimension of spatial planning Metropolitan area: A city’s hinterland is important for many reasons. Road and rail links allow people to commute to the central city from distant suburbs, secondary cities, towns and villages outside its immediate urbanized area. Pressure for future growth is likely to occur in these locations (enhanced by decentralization of economic and service functions from congested central city areas), and in periurban areas that may lie beyond the central city’s administrative limits. Any risk associated with development in this often-complex networked urban system needs to be planned for. The term ‘metropolitan area’ is normally used to define this larger socio-economic functioning catchment area of a city for physical and economic planning purposes Many large cities have defined metropolitan area boundaries. Normally, these are more for planning than administrative purposes, but occasionally, co-operation and collaboration at the local level has led to new intermediate forms of governance at the city-region scale (See Box 3.8).27 Metropolitan areas can usefully serve as a starting point for scoping risk at the city-regional scale as data on them will often exist. Regional and state level data can of course be useful but may be at too general a scale to be useful in urban analysis.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population division, Population Estimates and Projections Section, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision. <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/doc_highlights.htm> 27 If no such metropolitan planning area or region exists, one can be defined using available datasets. At the simplest level, this can be defined using the appropriate local government area boundaries that encompass the urbanized area of the city or agglomeration as evidenced from the satellite image. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 3.8: Emerging governance of Greater Manchester28 ‘The emergence of city-regions in England offers some useful lessons for World Bank partners in developing countries. The City-Region approach, as applied in England touches upon issues of decentralization, intergovernmental fiscal relations, governance, and the need to realign outdated administrative arrangements with a metropolitan area's economic footprint,…As a concept, Cityregions are designed to promote cross-boundary collaboration across large urban areas. They aim to facilitate horizontal and vertical co-ordination between multiple jurisdictions. They advance the concept of an appropriate spatial scale for economic development functions such as transport, housing and training. They capture urban hinterlands, as well as core cities.’ The city-regional approach in England has emerged in response to excessive centralization, underbounded central cities, poor horizontal co-ordination around economic development, and the changing geography England’s urban economies…For example, the City of Manchester has 450,000 residents, out of a metropolitan population of 2.6 million.’ The ten local authorities of Greater Manchester have worked closely together since the late 1980s. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) sets the economic development agenda for the conurbation. It lobbied for the development and expansion of the Metrolink tram system with central government, and spearheaded growth at Manchester Airport, collectively owned by the ten councils. Greater Manchester’s new city-regional governance arrangements remain ahead of other major English city-regions, but have their challenges. Their complexity has made it difficult for the public to engage with them. Political disagreements between local authorities are inevitable and problematic. Nevertheless, despite political difference and ‘teething problems’ this bottom up initiative to city region governance has pressed forward to gain a substantial institutional basis. ‘The ten authorities in Greater Manchester are the first in the country to develop a statutory ‘Combined Authority’ which will co-ordinate key economic development, regeneration and transport functions. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was established on the 1 April 2011. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) will continue to act as the voice of the ten local authorities of Greater Manchester but as part of a much stronger partnership with GMCA. A new Transport for Greater Manchester Committee will assist the GMCA in carrying out its transport functions.’29 City region: A city’s population is dependent on a range of natural assets and ecosystem services provided by its surrounding region. Additionally, damage to or destruction of critical infrastructure at strategic points connecting a city to its hinterland or the rest of the country can disrupt essential urban services and supplies. This more widely-defined planning entity is referred to variously as the subregion, metropolitan, city or urban region. Some countries define metropolitan planning regions for their major, especially capital cities (e.g. Tokyo’s National Capital Region which has a population of more than 43m of which about 36m live in the Tokyo urban agglomeration and 13m in the municipal area). Water is the most obvious example of a regional natural asset – sensitive to impacts of climate change and essential to a city’s survival. Water management across a river basin is critical to ensuring a city’s water supply, carrying away its storm-water and preventing flooding, providing hydroelectric power and irrigating surrounding agricultural areas that supply food to the urban population and raw materials to its industries. Some of the management may need to take place at the national or even supra-national scale as rivers cross national boundaries (see Table 3.1 and Chapter 6), but the close everyday connections between a city and its rural hinterland provide an essential lens within which a city’s future sustainable development and its exposure to natural hazards can should be examined.

Larkin, K and A Marshall (2008) City-regions: Emerging lessons from England. Directions in Urban Development Issue Note Series. Centre for Cities <http://www.centreforcities.org/worldbank.html> 29 GMCA/AGMA Historic Moment for Greater Manchester. <http://www.agma.gov.uk/> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 3.1: Spatial planning units and their typical institutional frameworks Spatial planning units: River basin management

Relevant government or quasi-government institutions: Drainage or watershed management authorities; trans-boundary management authorities (can be international); water resource managers or water utilities; state or regional planning authority.

Coastal zone management

Integrated Coastal Zone Management authorities; state or regional planning authority port or harbor authorities; fisheries management authority or regulator.

Urban or city region management Urban agglomeration, metropolitan area

State or regional level government planning agency; metropolitan regional planning authority; association of local governments; regional transport authority.

City or urban district

Municipality.

Countries such as China have municipal boundaries that extend to include a wide rural hinterland of the central city and this unit can serve the purpose of a defined city region. On the basis of good local data, China is also planning to leverage the economic agglomeration benefits of regional scale ‘city clusters’ (Box 3.9). This provides a national level policy framework for encouraging inter-city collaboration, as in the case of Hunan Province quoted. Box 3.9: China’s systems of city clusters30 ‘China’s current 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) is encouraging city clusters to become the main form of urbanization. These clusters are designed to improve connectivity between large, medium, and small cities, each forming a city system. China’s encouragement of these city systems is motivated by the development paths of its two economic powerhouses: the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze River Delta. The Pearl River Delta, encompassing Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Foshan, and other cities, is home to 2.2% of China’s population, but accounts for 10.3 percent of GDP. The Yangtze River Delta, encompassing Shanghai, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing and other cities, has only 6.7% of China’s population and accounts for 15.7% of GDP. Much of the success of these regions builds on exploiting economies of scale, along with agglomeration economies from intra-industry and inter-industry interactions. Improving the fluidity of markets for land, labor and products hold the key for successful urbanization – it allows the same parcel of land to accommodate higher value production, helps connect poor people with economic opportunities, and lowers transport costs to facilitate economies of scale and specialization. In fact, integrating the institutions that govern the transfer and use of agrarian and urban land is likely to yield high payoffs in economic prosperity and harmonious development. In Hunan Province, the cities of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan are cooperating to build expressways and railways, improving connectivity among three cities and with their hinterland. A regional cooperation plan specifies that market prices will allocate land for different uses and promote land intensification in central city areas.’

Adapted from World Bank Urban Strategy, Systems of Cities: Harnessing urbanization for growth and poverty alleviation <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:20158153 ~menuPK:1358771~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html>; see also The World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy <http://www.wburbanstrategy.org/urbanstrategy/> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Policies and Practice 3.5

City networks and decentralized cooperation EU governments employ the ‘open method of coordination’ relying on mechanisms such as guidelines and indicators, benchmarking and sharing of best practice. As an element of soft governance, policy improvements in any particular country or region depend on sharing information and peer pressure rather than legal sanctions.31 Cities and local governments, often on the wrong end of top down relationships in relation to central government, have long relied on this type of networking to broaden and strengthen their policy approaches. Decentralized co-operation typically involves international networks of mayors or city officials, universities and other actors. Two recently created city networks – one global the other specific to the EAP region, are C40 (Box 3.10) and Eco2 (Box 3.11). These reflect a growing interest shown by the World Bank and international agencies such as JICA in urban development, largely prompted by growing concerns regarding urbanization, urban poverty, climate change and urban resilience issues. Box 3.10: Decentralized co-operation through global city networks: C40 The group of 40 mayors, known as C40, brings together large cities across the world committed to tackling climate change. C40 cities account for 8% of the global population, 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 21% of global GDP. C40 cities, together with a number of other affiliated cities, are already taking steps to address the challenges of a changing climate and C40 will augment this effort. The aims are:  To take a consistent approach to climate action plans and strategies  To adopt common measurement standards and reporting protocols on city greenhouse gas emissions to allow verifiable and consistent monitoring of emissions reductions, and facilitate access to carbon finance.  To identify actions that result in the greatest emission reductions,  To enable stronger partnerships between cities on shared climate goals,  To permit potential investors to identify opportunities across cities. The lack of a standard approach or process has made it difficult for investors and grantors to assess city action plans and thus has made them reluctant to fund projects. The World Bank will also establish a single, dedicated entry point for C40 cities to access World Bank climate change-related capacity building and technical assistance programs, and climate finance initiatives. In addition, the C40 will identify and work with national governments who are interested in funding climate change projects, and identify private sector partners to provide project financing in C40 cities. In turn, the World Bank will identify opportunities from among sources of concessional finance, carbon finance, and innovative market and risk management instruments as well as the private sector through the International Finance Corporation. The C40 and the World Bank Institute, the World Bank’s capacity development arm, already work together through the C40 Carbon Finance Capacity Building program, with support from the Government of Switzerland and the City of Basel. Established in 2008, this program is a pilot to build the capacity of a small number of developing cities to directly access the Clean Development Mechanism. The study was part of the work program of the Mayor’s Task Force on Climate Change, Disaster Risk and Urban Poverty comprised of the Mayors of Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Mexico City and São Paulo and Mayor David Miller, former Mayor of Toronto and former Head of C40. Both are attempting to mainstream common methodologies. In the case of C40, this relates to the measurement of (and response to) greenhouse gas emissions in large cities. Eco2 is closer to a more conventional donor-led program incorporating elements of city networking in an ambitious effort to disseminate a comprehensive, systems-based participatory approach to city planning for resilience and sustainability in East Asia and Pacific. While more technical and less normative in its focus, Eco2

Hughes, K (2001) The ‘Open Method’ of coordination: innovation or talking shop. Centre for European Reform Bulletin, 15, December 2000/January 2001, http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/issue15_hughes.html> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

shares many features in common with the successful but now largely defunct Local Agenda 21 program.32 Box 3.11: Decentralized co-operation through regional city networks: Eco2 ‘An Eco2 city builds on the synergy and interdependence of ecological and economic sustainability, and their fundamental ability to reinforce each other in the urban context. The Eco2 Cities Initiative uses an analytical and operational framework that helps cities to systematically achieve positive results. This needs to be customized to the particular context of each city.  A city based approach that takes into account the city’s specific circumstances, including the local ecology.  An expanded platform for collaborative design and decision-making that coordinates and aligning the actions of key stakeholders. This compensates for the inherent short-termism of the democratic process. The governance of a city becomes less vulnerable to the disruptions and potential distortions of long-term political concerns created by elections.  A one-system approach that enables cities to realize the benefits of integration by planning, designing, and managing the whole urban system. Prioritization, sequencing, and effectiveness of investments in sustainability and resiliency are all enhanced by understanding the city as a single system.  An investment framework that incorporates and accounts for lifecycle analysis, the value of all capital assets (manufactured, natural, human, and social), and a broader scope of risk assessments in decision-making. Combining bottom-up and top down and three tiers of operation and networking The proposed city based approach is bottom-up with bottom-up actions at the local level generate creative self-reliant solutions, while top-down supports at the senior government level enable cities to implement local solutions. The city’s collaborative platform works at three tiers: corporate, municipal, and regional Moving from the inner tier to the outer tier increases the number of stakeholders and the complexity and scope of the potential benefit.  Corporate operations: projects may be completely within the realm of control of the city administration itself and require effective urban management and coordination.  Municipal services: projects such as land use planning or infrastructure service development the city in its capacity as a provider of services and policy-making and regulatory authority is engaged with wider sets of (project-affected) stakeholders.  Regional systems: the third tier of the expanded platform will entail collaboration at the scale of the entire urban area or region. This may necessarily involve senior governments, utilities and other key private sector partners and civil society. At this level, an overarching planning framework and growth management strategy is helpful to set the context and coordinating framework for all other plans in the urban area. At each of these scales, very different levels of collaboration are necessary, and different working groups are required participating in a city-led collaborative process. This is likely to result in overlapping sets of collaborative network and the potential of new, unforeseen social institutions.’

3.6

Developing legislation and regulations Developing an effective regulatory framework can be a lengthy process with enforcing regulations extending the process still further (see Box 3.12). Any major investment in infrastructure clearly has to be set in the context of the existing regulatory framework for hazard risk management but, where possible, should contribute towards its ongoing development and improvement.

LA21 was a consensus-based, participatory approach to long-term planning for sustainability at the local level that emerged from the 1992 Earth Summit. It achieved many successful outcomes, particularly in Europe but also in many parts of the developing world. It was led by ICLEI, an global network of local governments for sustainability now promoting other sustainability management instruments such as the ecoBUDGET program and Triple Bottom Line, both being expanded and adapted in various cities around the world (see ICLEI, About sustainability management instruments <http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=824> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

With risk reduction needs pressing in many urban locations, investments need to go ahead that can set precedents and standards for good practice where these do not currently exist. At the same time, community-based approaches can help establish a ‘culture of good practice’ that can pave the way for an effective regulatory framework (see below). Box 3.12: Two Approaches to reducing disaster risks in the built environment33 The location approach, which seeks to limit development in hazardous areas, is most commonly achieved through the process of land use planning. Land use plans must first identify areas that are at risk from hazards and then designate these areas, through zoning or strategic spatial planning, for some low intensity development. Land use planning and zoning may also be used to set aside open areas that can be used for evacuation or emergency housing in case of a disaster and to plan for lifeline infrastructure that cities manage (water, drainage, transport and energy infrastructure). The design approach to urban and regional planning allows development in areas at risk to hazards, but seeks to control how buildings are designed and built. Designing safer buildings may limit some of damage if a hazard strikes but it does promote more development in the hazardous areas, and thus the potential for losses are greater. In cities, where the demand for land is intense, the design approach is more realistic than limiting development. This is because the land is valuable or people would rather live in centrally located areas, accepting the risk, rather than move further away. Land management and the regulatory framework for development, notably building codes, are key concerns as far as risk reduction and mainstreaming resilience is concerned. At the outset there needs to be a good understanding of how urban planning and management are conducted. The poorer the country the weaker the regulatory environment is likely to be, but there are also major regional, national and cultural differences in planning practice and land tenure. Do building codes that address key aspects of risk and vulnerability exist and are they enforced? Are building and planning regulations separate or combined? It is important to try to separate these two vital functions from one another, accepting that this has implications for resourcing and capacity. How do land use regulations relate to licensing, regulating and monitoring activities (e.g. noxious and polluting activities, water and sanitation, public and environmental health generally). Land tenure and administration is a further complicating factor that is touched on, along with an examination of the broader role of urban and land use planning in Chapter 5. An understanding of how it works at the local level is essential if urban plans can be made to work, addressing such issues as:  What is the nature of the land tenure system in the country or region within which the city is located?  How is land use and land ownership recorded?  Are the controls robust?  What is the relationship of planning and land use administration in land management – the two may be formally linked – as with building control, or carried on separately from one another.  How is land administered? Land registration procedures are often lengthy and complex and planning permission is dependent on proving land title so encouraging illegal development.  How prevalent is the practice of illegal land sub division, sale and occupation for urban development?  What proportion of urban land has legal title and what is the nature of that title? Some initial research addressing these questions is important for establishing the land use and development context within which any investment in urban infrastructure and its vulnerability to risk can be assessed.

Burby, R J (1998) Cooperating with nature: confronting natural hazards with land use planning for sustainable communities. Joseph Henry Press cited in Johnson C (2011) Creating an enabling environment for reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and middleincome countries. Draft for UNISDR. London: DPU.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

3.7

Regulatory frameworks for building Building and planning regulation can impede risk reduction if it makes safe building or secure land tenure unaffordable or unobtainable by the poor.34 This in turn can lead to greater inequalities in access to land or housing and to forced evictions or reduced tenure security of people in informal settlements. Box 3.13: Terminology on regulatory frameworks for building35 ‘There is a difference between statutory building regulations/building legislation, and building codes/building standards that support regulations with the technical requirements. Some definitions include (source: Building legislation: Encompasses all legal instruments for controlling building operations. It normally takes the form of one or more acts of parliament or legislature, for example a Building Act or Housing and Urban Development Act. Building regulations (or rules): A set of detailed controls for the construction of buildings. They expand on Acts, but on their own are statutory. These detailed rules may therefore address such elements as site conditions and use, water quality, means of access, natural lighting, ventilation, fire resistance, lighting and earthquake protection of buildings. Both regulations and rules are administrative edits drafted for the purpose of implementing a particular policy or strategy Building codes: A set of practical, technical and administrative rules and requirements for the construction of buildings. Building codes are not statutory, unless made so in the regulations. In most instances, regulatory and mandatory issues are contained in the regulations, whereas the codes support the regulations with technical requirements and details. Building standards: Covering the physical characteristics, materials, components and buildings and how they will be deemed as satisfactory for use in the given context. They regulate design by specifying such items as room size, distance from adjacent buildings, types of material and construction techniques. There are also standards for specific materials. Standards, to which codes and regulations often refer, are normally published separately.’ Planning and building standards are often too high; regulations are often too restrictive and administrative procedures often too cumbersome. Design concepts, standards and norms too often seek to impose aspirations of the elite, not reflect realities facing the majority. By seeking to cover everything in theory, nothing gets covered in practice. International and imported norms are not context sensitive and often too expensive or inaccessible. Codes and standards need to focus on key aspects of public health and safety.36 The RICS Major Disaster Management Commission37 advocates a participative motivational approach to implementing building codes, including working closely with local builders through: 1 Participatory development of codes with all stakeholders – increasing ownership, raising awareness and ensuring greater simplicity for non-engineered structures; 2 Accessible/simple codes to benefit the poor - most homes are self-built or built by local masons; 3 Using mass media for awareness raising; 4 Investing in training – especially at community level;

Johnson C (2011) Creating an enabling environment for reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and middle-income countries. Draft for UNISDR. London: DPU 35 Yahya, S. Elijah, A, Lucky, L, Alex, M, Oscar, N, and Theo, S (2001) Double standards single purpose: reforming housing regulations to reduce poverty. ITDG Publishing. pp143-144, cited in Johnson C (2011)   36 Payne, G (2010) Effective land use planning and regulations for DRR. Presentation to 'Regulatory frameworks in planning and building for disaster risk reduction.' Seminar, 15 September 2010, at Development Planning Unit (DPU), University College London 37 Katarai, S (2010) Built Environment Professionals and Disaster Management in Haiti, RICS Disaster Management Commission, Presentation to 'Regulatory frameworks in planning and building for disaster risk reduction.' Seminar, 15 September 2010, at Development Planning Unit (DPU), University College London WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

5 Improving training and awareness of local professionals and government officials. Box 3.14: Some recommendations on making buildings safe in developing countries38  Enact laws and policies at the national level that require local governments to take responsibility for planning, development control and safe building and include budgets and resources that enable local governments to do this.  Develop regulations, codes and standards that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor but require less oversight from government.  Invest in the capacity of local governments to plan for and encourage safe development. Significant financial support is needed. Local governments need to leverage existing and new resources to meet the shortfalls in service delivery and basic infrastructure adaptation  Increase the capacity of local government to raise awareness about safe building practices for non-engineered structures. This includes using media and pamphlets for raising awareness of safe building methods, investing in training at community-level and training of building professionals and across government departments.  Work with professional and trade organizations to improve ethics and standards of practice. Involve them directly in improving the standards of practice.  Streamline permits and land registration and development processes.

Box 3.15: An example of urban disaster risk reduction: the case of Istanbul The 1999 Marmara earthquake in the densely populated close to Istanbul left tens of thousands dead and destroyed more than a hundred thousand buildings.39 Although Turkey has a seismic building code in place, very few of the buildings that collapsed were built according to it. The earthquakes caused an economic downturn that year with 6.5 percent contraction in GDP and a huge economic crisis. The earthquake precipitated a series of legislative and policy measures to reduce risk (with World Bank support) notably in the Istanbul metropolitan region but also across the country. However, gaps are still to be addressed, particularly in the co-ordination of different level and different arms of government.40 Many of the challenges of implementing laws and plans remain. Although the role of local governments has been strengthened, particularly in poorer more vulnerable areas they lack sufficient resource and capacity. Additionally, the participation of communities and other key stakeholders yet to reach the aims set out in policy. A 2004 Earthquake Council recommendation that development and urban planning legislation be uncoupled from building construction legislation covering codes, standards and supervision guidelines has yet to be implemented. So to have a series of recommendations relating to raising professional and technical standards among built environment professionals and building contractors.41 It is important, however, to recognize and build on the strides that have been made. Nationally, information is collected and made available on building location, number of floors, total area, built area, construction material and age.42 This data enables engineers to undertake accurate loss evaluations from hazards and track increases in vulnerability through the years. The Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality provides its own detailed building statistics by neighborhood. It enables risk studies by neighborhood, with estimates both for levels of damage to buildings and casualties. It has also enabled studies of potential landslides and liquefaction at high resolution and

Developed from policy recommendations in Johnson, C (2011)  Gülkan, P, Disaster Risk Reduction In Turkey: Revisions For Land Use Planning, Development And Building Code Enforcement Since 1999, Disaster Management Research Centre Middle East Technical University Ankara 06531, Turkey 40 Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) Post-1999 developments in disaster management in Turkey: the regulatory frameworks and implementation of land use planning for disaster risk reduction; Gülkan, P, 41 Gülkan, P, 42 UNISDR Words into Action, For further information visit: Building Construction Statistics, State Institute of Statistics, Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry, Ankara, Turkey. www.die.gov.tr/yayin 38 39

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

other studies related to flash floods. The Istanbul Metropolitan Planning (IMP) Office created in 2005 works with Neighborhood Coordination Offices to conduct building surveys and risk analysis.43 Of the 150,000 buildings so far surveyed, about a third were determined as risky.44 However, homeowners in these areas have not been informed about the results according to an ISMEP study.45 On the basis of a JICA-commissioned study on disaster mitigation/prevention and seismic microzonation’ in 2002, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, together with four local universities, prepared the Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul (EMPI).46 The Earthquake Master Plan includes a Strategic Plan for Disaster Mitigation in Istanbul (SPDMI) with the primary goal of reducing seismic impacts and the secondary goal of improving environmental quality.47 The SPDMI identifies the areas most vulnerable to economic or human losses due to an earthquake as well as the safest and most beneficial areas for development and retrofitting.48 It recommends a national spatial strategy for social and economic growth that mandates the use of regional plans highlighting the hazard mitigation role environmental assets. Peripheral areas near Istanbul were identified for resettlement of high-risk, high-density urban communities. Currently, municipalities’ work in partnership with TOKI, the Housing Development Administration of Turkey.49 Priority is given to the transformation of high-risk areas, and suitability of the development site is analyzed following geological survey and in relation to the local master plan, although TOKI can over-ride the provisions of these. Recently, TOKI announced that, over the next five years (until 2015), it will build 50,000 units of disaster housing in imposes minimum and maximum size limits on the areas to be transformed, according to the head of TOKI, the new policy will be to transform unsafe areas of the city “lot by lot”, tearing down buildings if 51 percent of homeowners are in favour.50 This needs to be seen in the context of varying degree of community reaction to the measures taken so far with some homeowners opposed to being moved to smaller units and high rise development in remote locations. The lack of information on what will happen in projects is a key issue. Recently, the Metropolitan Municipality announced a “disaster report card”, summarizing its activities and future plans.51

Tools, methods, checklists and information sources 3.8

Consensus building A number of tools for facilitating participatory and collaborative governance are listed at the end of Chapter 4. Common to nearly all such approaches is the need to build consensus, a checklist of requirements include:52  Inclusion of a full range of stakeholders; ensuring that all who should be are invited to the table;

Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) Presentation by IBB representative Ibrahim Baz at the Affordable Housing Instittute Working Symposium, “Housing and Urban Renewal Entities in the Context of Disaster Risk Mitigation”, held at the Bosphorus University in Istanbul, October 18-19, 2010. Cited in Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010 45 ISMEP Project report. Cited in Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010 46 Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) 44

Bigio A G and Hallegatte S (2011) Urban risk management, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction:: Planning, policy synergies and trade-offs in the cities of the developing world 48 Ibid. 49 TOKİ aims to ‘revitalize blighted neighbourhoods, restore and reconstruct buildings of historic importance and create the infrastructure for rural areas and provide housing, infrastructure and social facilities for the victims of disasters.’ <http://www.toki.gov.tr/english/hda.asp#mission>. Cited in Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) 50 Istanbul’a 50 thousand deprem konutu (50 thousand units of disaster housing for Istanbul). TOKI News. May 2010. pp. 17-19. Cited in Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) 51 http://www.dha.com.tr/n.php?n=iste-istanbulun-deprem-karnesi-2010-08-17 and http://www.internethaber.com/istanbul/istanbulun-deprem-raporu-korkuttu-280686h.htm. Cited in Yonder A and Turkoglu H (2010) 52 Largely adapted from Innes, J (2004) Consensus building: clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory 3 (1): 5-20

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

A task that is meaningful to the participants with the promise of having a timely impact; Participants setting their own ground rules for behavior and agendas; A process that begins with mutual understanding of interests and avoids positional bargaining; A dialogue where all are heard and respected and equally able to participate; A self-organizing process that permits the status quo and all assumptions to be questioned; Information that is accessible and fully shared among participants; An understanding that ‘consensus’ is only reached when all interests have been explored and every effort has been made to satisfy these concerns.  Facilitation

      

Any collaborative process will involve conflicts of interest and require compromise, agreement on priorities and sequencing and possibly conflict resolution. Until trust is fully established, a neutral facilitator is invariably a necessity.

3.9

Analyzing urban governance structures At the national level, a preliminary mapping analysis should be undertaken to determine the geographical distribution and size of urban agglomerations. The UN’s World Urbanization Prospects defines the major urban agglomerations at country level but the definitions vary from country to country. Additionally, smaller but significant urban areas may be omitted (although more inclusive listings of city proper populations may be useful as a starting point in this respect). A consistent methodology using satellite image analysis should be employed for mapping urbanized areas in relation to hazards and vulnerability at the national and regional scale. This can then be compared with a map of political and administrative boundaries to determine which particular municipalities or groups of municipalities should be targeted for investment. The spatial definition of potentially at risk urban areas provides a basis for an analysis of the city region governance issues addressing such questions as:  If any metropolitan regional authorities are defined with limited urban, transport or environmental planning and management competencies – what are these?  What are the existing institutional, political and administrative structures and what is their legal and geographical jurisdiction  Do ‘vulnerability to hazards’ or ‘resilience’ figure anywhere in these structures?  Is there a need to challenge this and promote a change?  What is the political context in terms of stability, transparency, corruption?  What is the electoral cycle and how will this effect any investment strategy?  Are staff politically or professionally appointed at what level?  What is the level of coordination amongst responsible staff?  What are the funding arrangements? Overall and specific An Institutional (structure and risk) analysis should be undertaken using these questions (expanded as necessary) as a basis for the terms of reference. This is an essential element of the City Urban Resilience Briefing exercise outlined in Chapter 1. A framework for undertaking this analysis is shown in Table 3.2. This type of analysis should be carried out in the context of a broader institutional landscape and participatory local stakeholder analysis at the project level as in the following section

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 3.2: Institutional analysis framework Sector

Level of government

e.g. Environment/natural resources River and coastal management Disaster Management Physical planning (land use and infrastructure), etc.

National

Related legislation, regulations

Agencies (inc. contact details)

Roles and responsibilities, competencies

Geographical area of jurisdiction

Head of agency & tenure (political/ professional?)

Budget

Staffing

Policies

Key opportunities and constraints for risk management

1 2, etc

Regional

1 2, etc

Local authority 1 Local authority 2 Local authority 3, etc

*In the absence of these or additional to, use of strategic planning techniques such as SWOT, PEST or STEER analysis

This type of analysis to be carried out in the context of a broader institutional landscape and participatory local stakeholder analysis

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

Policy goals, indicators, benchmarks, targets*

Information, data sources

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

3.10 Data and protocols for governance and infrastructure investment Dealing with the uncertainties of climate change and unpredictability of geo-physical hazards requires an ever-greater reliance on inclusive, collaborative, flexible forms of networked or ‘soft’ governance. The foundation of adaptable governance is good information and communication. Trusted, up-to-date data is critical. Learning the lessons of practice and sharing these as quickly and effectively as possible is critical. Information and communications technology makes this all possible but does not ensure that the datasets are of sufficient quality and up-to-date – or indeed that data exists at all. Local datasets are often sadly deficient in developing world cities. In Chapter 5 on Urban Planning, we set out the steps for drawing up a flexible framework for the spatial development of a city. This includes guidelines on how to create a Geo-Data Infrastructure (GDI) legacy, an accessible GIS database that can be regularly updated to inform the future management and planning of the city according to changing and unforeseen circumstances. Many developed world cities now have online, web-based data centers, accessible by citizens including such information as real time data on flooding or public transit movements (see Box 3.16). As noted elsewhere in this guide, mobile phone technology is proving highly effective in alerting inhabitants to impending dangers from natural hazards. Box 3.16: Real-time flood information and web services in King County, Washington State53 King County in Washington State is one of the largest counties in the United States and is centered on the city of Seattle, for which it is effectively the metropolitan authority. It faces flood threats from four rivers. It’s web site covers real-time data as part of its flood warning services including US Geological Survey gage data, maps, alert phases and recent high flows. Flow modeling-based maps show areas of flood risk in the Green River valley. The county provides automated flood alerts to homes and businesses during a flood. For those that sign up to the service it provides varied methods of delivery for getting information directly – such as voice, text or email, backed up by other sources for information, such as radio, television and the Internet. The county’s web site also offers real-time data on bus movements and Twitter-based alters on transit movements, travel alerts and access to traffic cameras. However, all forms of information have to be reliable and trusted. Good data has to be collected in a professional way. At the same time surveys offer an opportunity for involving communities and broadening the base of participatory governance. There is a balance to be maintained between maintaining the quality of the information and reinforcing participation. As noted in Chapter 5, there are local human resources that can be used cheaply and effectively, and participation is essential to ensure buy-in and ownership. However, an element of basic professional training and supervision may be essential depending on the nature and use of the data that is being collected. International development agencies can make a real difference to risk reduction by investing in urban information centers and building local capacity for gathering, storing and sharing information (see Box 3.17). Protocols like those being developed under the C40 and Eco2 programs will greatly support the necessary sharing of information at the national and international levels and the leverage of both public and private investment in infrastructure that builds urban resilience. Box 3.17: How international development agencies can support networking for risk reduction The Metro Manila Council, comprising 16 cities and one municipality, works with the National Risk Reduction and Management Council, composed of national government agencies like the departments of national defense, social welfare and development, health, and education, to prepare measures to cushion and minimize the destructive effects of floods and typhoons. These cities and municipalities link up with private sector counterparts, emergency response and relief organizations like the Red Cross, local police, and other law enforcement agencies for

King County Flood Warning system http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/warningsystem.aspx> ; Bus tracker < http://trackerloc.kingcounty.gov/>; Transportation< http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/MyCommute/>

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

possible forced evacuation to save lives and properties, among many other response mechanisms. A unified data and information center is required to store relevant information necessary to prepare the country respond to the changing climate. A transfer of information and data is necessary so that emerging issues can be taken into account and appropriate recommendations can be sent to the national level. Owing to the archipelagic nature of the Philippines, national government support tends to arrive late and local governments must work and plan together. IDAs can help by devizing protocols to guide countries in this development.

3.11 Key sources ADB Urban Development: <http://www.adb.org/urbandev/> de Villa, V and M Westfall (2002) Urban Indicators for Managing Cities: Cities Data Book. ADB. A sourcebook of methodologies for urban indicators for Asian cities. Purchase or download from <http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Cities_Data_Book/default.asp> Cities Alliance <http://www.citiesalliance.org/ca/cds Eco2: <http://www.worldbank.org/Eco2>; Suzuki, H, Dastur, A, Moffatt ,S, Yabuki, N and Maruyama H (2010) Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. Download or purchase from <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMD K:22504204~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html> UNESCAP <http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp> and Access to basic services: the importance of good governance <http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/access-to-basic-services.asp> Worldwide Governance Indicators: <http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp;> Global City Indicators Facility <http://www.cityindicators.org/> (‘Indicators are currently being entered by all of the new member cities and once the data has been reviewed and checked internally, cities will start making their data publicly available.’). UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory <http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=646>; Global Campaign on Urban Governance. <http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=2>; Tools to support transparency in local governance. <http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=1126> World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy: <http://www.wburbanstrategy.org/urbanstrategy/> Systems of Cities: Harnessing urbanization for growth and poverty alleviation <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMD K:20158153~menuPK:1358771~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html>

3.12 Eco2 checklist54 20 ‘Stepping Stone’s for a City-based Approach’: Review the Eco2 initiative and adapt the Eco2 principles to the local context. Identify local champion. Obtain commitments from city councils. Work closely with national governments. Engage the international development community, best practice cities and the World Bank in the Eco2 initiative. 6. Outline a process for building capacity and enhance the skills and knowledge of local professional staff 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Suzuki, H, Dastur, A, Moffatt ,S, Yabuki, N and Maruyama H (2010) Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities.<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:225 04204~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337178,00.html> pp46-49, 59-60, 86-88, 101.

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific 7. Develop fluency of Eco2 concepts among local decision makers using case studies from the book and other supporting materials 8. Initiate a process for collaborative decision-making. 9. Prepare a mandate and budget for a secretariat. 10. Prepare a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience. 11. Select a catalyst project suitable for demonstrating the Eco2 principles. 12. Provide just-in-time training and capacity building. 13. Conduct a series of integrated design workshops. 14. Explore design solutions and prepare a concept plan for review; 15. Align policy tools among all stakeholders to ensure successful implementation 16. Use a lifecycle costing method or tool to understand the lifecycle costs and cash flows. 17. Develop and adopt indicators for assessing the four types of capital and for benchmarking performance. 18. Forecast the impacts of plausible changes in climate, markets, resource availability, demographics, and technology by hosting a forecast workshop. 19. Implement an Eco2 catalyst project so as to protect and enhance capital assets and reduce vulnerabilities; 20. Monitor results, provide feedback, learn and adapt to improve performance. The best way to learn the accounting methods is in practice in a catalyst project; a base case scenario may be developed as a benchmark for comparing alternative approaches.

3.13 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers, and project design and assessment checklist See Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 3.3: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers

4 General good practice and policy 5 National level/sub-national recommendations:

(state/regional/provincial) level

7 Managing urban risk and governing for resilience 8 1. Ensure urban risk and  Do existing or proposed resilience is addressed as a cross cutting issue: mainstream across all relevant sector policies, disaster management, climate change, environment, housing an urban development, energy, industry, etc.

City/municipal level



Is urban reliance integrated into policy and practice across local government departments?

national policies in all relevant sectors address urban risk and climate change and promote urban resilience? (see Section 1.1).

2. Strengthen the performance of local government in building urban resilience through decentralization and subsidiarity. Collect the relevant data and monitor improvements in local governance over time?



Do existing or proposed national policies provide for reinforcing, incentivizing and monitoring decentralization and subsidiarity?



Do existing or proposed citylevel policies support and implement the principle of subsidiarity – delivering and managing infrastructure services at the level closest to the user.

3. Invest in building resilience at the city level: city governments are the drivers for addressing hazard risks through ensuring basic services. Local governments play a vital role and need effective financial support.



Does central government support investment in resilient urban infrastructure and services?



Are city level budgets sufficient to deliver resilient basic infrastructure and related services to all urban residents and businesses?

4. Focus on the urban poor: Provision of good, safe basic services are the first line of defense against the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.



Do existing or proposed national policies prioritize and support investment in safe and resilient basic infrastructure services for the urban poor?



Do city level policies and budgets prioritize safe and resilient basic infrastructure services for the urban poor?

5. Aim to mainstream resilience and risk reduction into urban management and planning. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction addressed and sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management practices (see Chapter 5).



Do existing or proposed national planning and urban development policies and guidance integrate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures (see Chapter 5)?



Do city level urban development planning policies and guidance integrate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures (see Chapter 5)?

6. Make effective use of decentralized cooperation: good practice examples of risk reduction and resilience exist in cities around the world and can be replicated with sufficient attention to the local context.

2 May 2011



Does national government promote and offer support to initiatives from the city level for use of decentralized cooperation for sharing good practice and attracting investment for resilient infrastructure.



Is the city government actively involved or does it plan to be involved in decentralized cooperation for sharing good practice and attracting investment for resilient infrastructure?

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

7. Develop national and international protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience; benchmark risk and benchmarking risk reduction performance nationally, regionally and globally:



Do existing or proposed national policies and guidance suggest protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience and risk and benchmarking risk reduction; do they refer to international standards?



Is the city government actively using or plan to does it plan to use national or international protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience and risk and benchmarking risk reduction?

8. Prepare a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience.



Do existing or proposed national policies offer guidance and support in preparing a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience?



Does an up-to-date long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience exist or is it in preparation?

9. Adopt a multi-sector city-region approach to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk: this enables cities to realize the synergies and benefits of whole urban system integration.



Do existing or proposed national planning and other sector policies offer guidance and support on city-region approaches to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk?



Is the city involved in or planning to develop a multisector city-region approach to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk?

10. Establish an inclusive investment framework and related metrics for risk assessment: This should incorporate lifecycle analysis and the value of all capital assets (manufactured, natural, human, and social), and a broader scope of risk assessments in decisionmaking.



Do existing or proposed national sustainable development policies offer guidance and support to cities on the use of inclusive investment framework and related measures in assessing risk? Are such methods in use or proposed for use by national government?



Does the city government use or are there opportunities for it to use an inclusive investment framework and related metrics incorporating lifecycle analysis and the valuing of all capital assets in any risk assessments it undertakes?

11. Invest in risk data collection and storage, information and knowledge dissemination and exchange: undertake participatory/professional surveys, city level databases and public information and interactive communication systems;



Do existing or proposed national policies offer guidance and support to cities on data collection, including participatory surveys; information and knowledge dissemination and exchange?



Does the city undertake data collection including participatory surveys? Does it invest in data storage, information and knowledge dissemination and exchange?

12. Make use of mass media for hazard risk awareness raising; avoid information overload.



Does national government link up with local government is the use of mass media for hazard risk awareness purposes?



Does the city make use of local media for hazard risk awareness purposes? Are information systems well designed to be accessible and avoid information overload.

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

13. Invest in training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at community level; develop training and awareness of local professionals and government officials.



Does national government promote and offer support for training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at the local and community level?



Does the city invest in training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at community level?; Does it undertake measures to improve awareness of government officials, politicians and other key local actors of natural hazard and climate change risks?

14. Forecast the impacts of plausible changes in climate: host a forecast workshop. Explore stakeholder scenarios for robust decision-making.



Does national government promote and offer support for robust decision-making at the urban scale through climate change forecasting workshops and participatory scenario development.



Does the city government undertake robust decisionmaking at the urban scale through climate change forecasting workshops and participatory scenario development?

15. Learn from pilot projects and adapt to improve performance: a base case scenario may be developed as a benchmark for comparing alternative approaches



Does national government promote and offer support for the development of projects piloting resilience at the city level and methods of learning from and disseminating this experience.



Are new and innovative approaches to urban resilience being piloted in city level projects; are lessons being learned, influencing policy and being disseminated?

1. Engage in multi-stakeholder development of land use plans and codes: urban and regional plans and building codes or standards which respond to the needs of multiple stakeholders are more likely to be adopted and result in overall risk reduction.



Is national government involving a wide range of stakeholders in the development of appropriate urban planning and building regulations to reduce risk?



Are key stakeholders involved in the development of appropriate urban planning and building regulations to reduce risk at the city level?

2. Develop network-based governance of resilience including multiple and overlapping networks: Contribute to building a broad collaborative platform and a common vision that works at the corporate, municipal, and the cityregional levels.



Is national government promoting and supporting a networked approach to the governance of resilience at the local level?



Is the city developing a networked approach to the governance of resilience at the local level? Is it building a collaborative platform and a common vision that works at the corporate, municipal, and the city-regional levels

3. Develop inter-city collaboration in risk reduction in economically and ecologically defined city-regions: Look to develop and institutionalize intercity collaboration of infrastructure investment and service delivery in economically and ecologically defined city-regions.



Is national government promoting and supporting risk reduction in economically and ecologically defined cityregions?



Is the city involved in collaboration with neighboring local authorities in promoting and supporting risk reduction?

4. Secure leadership and commitment: Identify local champions and ensure the necessary commitment from central, sub-national and local government. International investment in infrastructure provision can be a strong driver, but extra effort may be needed.



Is national government committed to collaboration with stakeholders and giving active support to local governments at the city level?



Is the city government committed to collaboration with stakeholders and giving active support to local governments at the city level?

Collaborative governance

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

5. Involve all key stakeholders: make sure that the full range of stakeholders relevant to the project area, scope and focus are represented and included in the decision-making process, including those relating to longtem management of assets.



Is national government supporting local government efforts to involve all key stakeholders in fully collaborative investment decision-making process?



Has the city established a process for involving key stakeholders in collaborative investment decision-making?

6. Allocate sufficient time and resources: the collaborative process is iterative and should. Within reason, open-ended allowing stakeholders to engage in strategic decision-making where possible. Investment in upstream collaboration delivers downstream benefits.



Does national government policy offer guidance on programming and resourcing of the collaborative governance process?



Has the city programmed sufficient time and resources in an iterative and reasonably open-ended collaborative process allowing stakeholders to engage in strategic infrastructure investment decision-making where possible?

Policies for safe construction 1. Enact laws and policies at the national level requiring local governments to take responsibility for planning, development control and safe building



Do existing or proposed national laws and policies require local governments to take responsibility for planning, development control and safe building



Is the city government acting to take responsibility for planning, development control and safe building under current legislation?

2. Develop regulations, codes and standards that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor but require less oversight from government.



Do regulations, codes and standards that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor exist that require less oversight from government or are they being developed?



Does the city government work within a framework of regulations, codes and standards that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor requiring less oversight from officials?

3. Invest in the capacity of local governments to plan for and implement regulations that ensure safe development.



Is national government investing in strengthening the capacity of local governments to plan for and implement regulations that ensure safe development?



Is the city government investing in its capacity to plan for and implement regulations that ensure safe development?

4. Increase the capacity of local government to raise public awareness about safe building practices for non-engineered structures.



Is national government investing in increasing the capacity of local government to raise public awareness about safe building practices for non-engineered structures?



Is the city government investing in increasing its capacity to raise public awareness about safe building practices for nonengineered structures?

5. Work with professional and trade organizations to improve ethics and standards of practice. Involve them directly in improving the standards of practice.



Is national government working with professional and trade organizations to improve ethics and standards of practice?



Is the city government working with professional and trade organizations to improve standards of practice at the local level?

6. Streamline permits and land registration and development processes.



Are existing development permits and land registration and planning processes unduly cumbersome, restrictive and biased against the poor? Are there plans at the national or regional level to streamline these?

World Bank Project Management Cycle: PMC1 Country Assistance Strategy A National or City Urban Resilience Brief could be commissioned as a separate project under PMC2-6.

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 3.4: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist General good practice and policy recommendations:

Project checklist for task managers:*

Managing urban risk and governing for resilience 1. Strengthen the performance of local government in building urban resilience through decentralization and subsidiarity. Collect the relevant data and monitor improvements in local governance over time.



Does the proposed infrastructure investment project contribute to delivering and managing infrastructure services at the level closest to the user?

2. Invest in building resilience at the city level: city governments are the drivers for addressing hazard risks through ensuring basic services.



Does the project contribute to delivering resilient basic infrastructure and related services to all urban residents and businesses?

3. Focus on the urban poor: Provision of good, safe basic services are the first line of defense against the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.



Does the project contribute to delivering resilient basic infrastructure and related services to the urban poor?

4. Aim to mainstream resilience and risk reduction into urban management and planning: Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction best addressed and sustained over time through integration with existing urban planning and management practices.



Can the project serve to pilot new approaches to mainstreaming resilience with lessons for urban development planning policies and guidance at the city level?

5. Make effective use of decentralized co-operation: good practice examples of risk reduction and resilience exist in cities around the world and can be replicated with sufficient attention to the local context.



Does the project leverage benefits from decentralized co-operation for sharing good practice and attracting investment for resilient infrastructure?

6. Develop national and international protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience and risk and benchmarking risk reduction performance nationally, regionally and globally:



Are national or international protocols and indicators for measuring urban resilience and risk and benchmarking risk reduction employed in the project design and assessment?

7. Prepare a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience.



Does the project contribute to the development of a long-term planning framework for sustainability and resilience or fit within an existing planning framework?

8. Adopt a multi-sector city-region approach to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk: this enables cities to realize the synergies and benefits of whole urban system integration.



Does the project contribute to the development of a multi-sector city-region approach to planning and designing for, and managing hazard risk or form part of such an approach?

9. Establish an inclusive investment framework and related metrics for risk assessment: This should incorporate lifecycle analysis and the value of all capital assets (manufactured, natural, human, and social), and a broader scope of risk assessments in decision-making.



Does the project risk assessment use an inclusive investment framework and related metrics incorporating lifecycle analysis and the valuing of all capital assets?

10. Invest in risk data collection and storage, information and knowledge dissemination and exchange: undertake participatory/professional surveys, city level databases and public information and interactive communication systems;



Does the project involve city level data collection including through the use of participatory surveys? Does it invest in data storage, information and knowledge dissemination and exchange?

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

11. Make use of mass media for hazard risk awareness raising; avoid information overload.



Does the project aim to make use of local media for hazard risk awareness purposes? Are information systems well designed to be accessible and avoid information overload.

12. Invest in training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at community level; develop training and awareness of local professionals and government officials.



Does project include investment in training and capacity building for risk reduction and response – especially at community level? Does it undertake training and measures to improve awareness of government officials, politicians and other key local actors of natural hazard and climate change risks?

13. Forecast the impacts of plausible changes in climate: host a forecast workshop. Explore stakeholder scenarios for robust decision-making.



Does the project design involve robust decision-making at the urban scale through climate change forecasting workshops and participatory scenario development?

14. Learn from pilot projects and adapt to improve performance: a base case scenario may be developed as a benchmark for comparing alternative approaches



Does the project serve to pilot new and innovative approaches to urban resilience? How will the project be monitored to provide lesions for hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation and how will these be disseminated?

Collaborative governance 1. Engage in multi-stakeholder development of land use plans and codes: urban and regional plans and building codes or standards which respond to the needs of multiple stakeholders are more likely to be adopted and result in overall risk reduction.



Does the infrastructure investment envisage the use of a networked approach to the governance to its long-term management? Does it contribute to building or form part of a collaborative platform and a common vision that works at the corporate, municipal, and the city-regional levels

3. Develop inter-city collaboration in risk reduction in economically and ecologically defined city-regions: Look to develop and institutionalize inter-city collaboration of infrastructure investment and service delivery in economically and ecologically defined cityregions.



Does the infrastructure investment depend on collaboration between the lead city and neighboring local authorities?



Does the project identify potential local champions and guarantee the necessary commitment from central, sub-national and local government?

5. Involve all key stakeholders: make sure that the full range of stakeholders relevant to the project area, scope and focus are represented and included in the decisionmaking process, including those relating to long-tem management of assets.



Does the project envisage a process for involving key stakeholders in collaborative investment decision-making?



Has the project programmed sufficient time and resources in an iterative and reasonably open-ended collaborative process allowing stakeholders to engage in strategic infrastructure investment decision-making where possible?

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 Policies for safe construction 1. Enact laws and policies at the national level requiring local governments to take responsibility for planning, development control and safe building



Does the project meet local planning and building control requirements? Does it set new benchmark standards for good practice?

2. Develop regulations, codes and standards that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor but require less oversight from government.



Does the project aim to develop byelaws that reduce risk in non-engineered structures built by the poor requiring less oversight from officials?

3. Invest in the capacity of local governments to plan for and implement regulations that ensure safe development.



Does the project aim to help develop the city’s capacity to plan for and implement regulations that ensure safe development?

4. Increase the capacity of local government to raise public awareness about safe building practices for non-engineered structures.



Does the project aim to help increase the city’s capacity to raise public awareness about safe building practices for nonengineered structures?

5. Assess the potential for retrofitting of critical facilities and more general dwelling retrofitting measures and likely costs, means of funding and benefits; give particular attention to power stations with their potential for precipitating industrial accidents and importance in ensuring continuity of economic activity.



Does the project aim to address urgent requirements to retrofit critical facilities and/or more general dwelling retrofitting measures.

*World Bank Project Management Cycle reference: PMC2-PMC6 PMC2 Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and board approval PMC4 Implementation and supervision PMC5 Implementation and completion; PMC6 Evaluation

2 May 2011

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

4. Participation and community-led strategies Poor communities are those most often in the frontline of urban disasters. They therefore need to be in the centre of the decision making process for the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of DRM in their communities. Community-led interventions are most effective when they are part and work in connection with the efforts of government, private sector and civil society organizations for a holistic approach that includes physical, social and economic aspects for sustainable development. This is a multi-stakeholder, partnership-based or networked process strongly linked to local priorities across sectors. Some tasks are better coordinated at national level (policy support, strategies, assessments, performance monitoring), while others respond to local needs and work better at local, community level (hazard/risk specific awareness campaigns and plans, planning of local resources). Others are task specific and belong to a chain of actions that go across sectors and levels (capacity building, planning, monitoring): raising awareness with all stakeholders from senior government officials to parents, teachers, nurses, vulnerable groups, youth; devising policy guidelines for settlement improvement and relocation to raise living standards and address the livelihoods of the most vulnerable.

Overview 4.1

Participation of communities and other stakeholders According to the International Finance Corporation’s Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan:1 ‘Participation turns communities and societal and institutional stakeholders into active parties in managing the risk and creates needed opportunities to:        

Understand the causes of the risk Gauge the potential impacts Recognize the exposed elements (physical and human) Understand the level of vulnerability Reach agreement on and assume acceptable levels of risk Recognize the need for and importance of mitigation measures Understand and reach consensus on how mitigation measures will be implemented Promote responsibility among all stakeholders for reducing the risk

Regardless of the time when the community and other stakeholders are involved, it should be borne in mind that active and constructive participation is achieved through:     

Information Communication Consultation Consensus Shared management – shared responsibility’

This chapter sets out the strategic and operational requirements for incorporating stakeholderorientated and community-led strategies into mainstreaming urban resilience in infrastructure investment projects. It is important to advocate for national policies for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) that facilitate meaningful involvement of stakeholders at all levels and across sectors. Community-led strategies

International Finance Corporation (2002) Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, Environment and Social Development Department, IFC, the World Bank Group, Washington DC <http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_resettle/$FILE/ResettlementHandbook.PDF> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

that facilitate mobilization of the most vulnerable have a better chance to succeed when they have the have been planned within a decentralized national framework for DRM.’ Interpretations of what ‘participation’ means vary widely in practice. The idea of a ‘ladder’ of participation has been revisited numerous times since Shelly Arnstein first published her ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ in 1969, drawing on her experience of planning and regeneration in the United States.2 Table 4.1 shows a recent interpretation of this idea. Stakeholder involvement ranges from a simple public relations exercise of informing those affected of decisions made elsewhere, through public consultation where there is more political pressure to take on board stakeholder views (though no guarantee to ensure that this process in more than tokenism), to shared decision making in a form of partnership, or a self-help approach where communities assume full control of the assets they draw on. ‘Community-led’ strategies imply either a partnership or networked approach in which communities initiate or take a leading role, or one where communities assume the role of developing and managing their physical assets (Community Asset Management – see Figure 4.1). In practice, finance for development usually comes from sources accountable to other, mainly public, interests and, both individually and collectively, members of poor urban communities have very limited or no ownership of the physical assets they draw on. In such cases, as with projects that task managers reading this guide have to address, some form of multi-stakeholder partnership in which communities, through their representatives, have a leading role, is the most likely mechanism for realizing effective participation in practice. Table 4.1: Levels of stakeholder and community involvement3 Project stages Initiate >

Plan >

Implement >

Maintain >

Self Help Community control

Community initiates action alone

Community plans alone

Community implements alone

Community maintains alone

Partnership Shared working and decisionmaking

Authorities & community jointly initiate action

Authorities & community jointly plan and design

Authorities & community jointly implement

Authorities & community jointly maintain

Consultation Authorities ask community for opinions

Authorities initiate action after consulting community

Authorities plan after consulting community

Authorities implement with community consultation

Authorities maintain with community consultation

Information One way flow of information Public relations

Authorities initiate action

Authorities plan and design alone

Authorities implement alone

Authorities maintain alone

Arnstein, S R (1969) Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4): 216–224; see also, for example, Connor, D M (2007), A new ladder of citizen participation, National Civic Review 77 (3): 3 Based on Wates, N (2002) Community Planning Handbook. Earthscan: London WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

considerati livelihoods equally, if n good work

Diagram: Bill Erickson

with a major institutional input at the state, provincial and central government levels. Sometimes, international agencies and the private sector will be involved. The shape â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;increase involvementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; outlined with a solid line illustrates the CAM approach, where the focus is shifted to properly funded and sponsored actions by ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific the community.

In the CAM approach, there is an increased emphasis upon the role the community can play in

4 Figurethe 4.1: Community increasing community empowerment entire life-cycle of itsAsset assets Management: as against conventional approaches to development where the

emphasis has been on the initiation and delivery of community assets by the public sector (i.e. government). recurrent disasters in the region, South East Asia and Pacific is well placed

Due to as most countries have put in place national frameworks to manage risks and prevent disasters, though some are more participatory than others. The use of technology is on the increase but there is the need to connect information and resources in all tiers of the government and grass-roots ends to strengthen the response to the challenges posed by climate change. An effective response needs to include participation of all stakeholders, and ensuring a meaningful participation of citizens in the decision making process is a key challenge. However, cost recovery is enhanced when all stakeholders have been part of the planning process and aware of and have agreed on the actions, the benefits and the management and financial responsibilities. Repayment of basic urban infrastructure and services investments is critical for local governments and the benefits of a safe city should be made clear to all the users of improved structures, including the private business and the commercial sector. In particular, ensuring that urban poor communities that are normally the most vulnerable to disasters participate in decision-making is critical. This requires advocacy for conducive local government policies and strategies and transparent institutional frameworks and decision-making process. Task managers need to work closely with counterpart governments to put participation and community-led approaches in the frontline when mainstreaming resilience into the Bankâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban development investments.

4.2

Encouraging multi-stakeholder partnerships Participatory approaches facilitate the involvement of other stakeholders and the convergence of financial and other resources from private and civil society organizations (CSOs). Involvement of CSOs needs to be decided in consultation with the communities, making sure these have the resources and skills for the type and scale of the required interventions. An effective way to involve

Theis, M, Brown, R and Kalra, R (2005), The Rough Guide to Community Asset Management, London: MLC Press, University of Westminster; Max Lock Centre (n.d.) Community Asset Management, University of Westminster, London <http://home.wmin.ac.uk/MLprojects/CAMweb/CAMdefault.html>See also Local Government Improvement and Development (n.d.) Empowering communities through asset management <http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=16639583> LG Improvement and Development, London, UK.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

Brick-making pitching in wi techniques bu

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

CSOs could be to invite their participation since the initial stage when projects are being designed. In this way to provide room to reconcile requirements of donors, government and communities with the methods and tools used by the various CSOs.5 In addition, CSOs could be very effective in the delivery of assistance, backstopping participatory process, and monitoring on behalf of donors, governments or communities. National and regional resource centers, institutions and programs like the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), DIPECHO (‘Disaster Preparedness ECHO’) are an added value as support mechanisms for working in this particular region. Civil society organizations play a very important role in holding governments and other partners accountable for DRM (Box 4.1). They can also influence policy like the case of MPBI’s (Community Disaster Preparedness Organization) experience in advocacy and facilitation of the approval process of the DRM Law in Indonesia. Box 4.1: The role of the media following the 2010 Haiti and Chile earthquakes ‘Following the 2010 Chile earthquake, the media identified gaps and overlaps between government agencies, central and local government, and the need to improve seismic monitoring. Following the Haiti and Chile earthquakes, the media in neighboring countries increased their disaster reporting. Nearly 20 percent of the media reports in Jamaica and 13 percent in Peru focused on the need to identify risks and vulnerabilities in their own countries, and another 15 percent and 34 percent respectively on risk reduction measures. In Haiti, Chile and neighboring countries, the media showed that it was capable of holding governments and the international community to account. This capacity is limited however, by the media’s short attention span and rapid drop-off in coverage after disasters.’ Active participation of stakeholders also facilitates the formation of alliances and convergence with funds and resources of the private sector, organizations of the civil society and residents as in the case of STEP-UP partnership for improvement of low-income areas in Manila (Box 4.2). Box 4.2: STEP-UP – a business sector-civil society alliance for urban poverty reduction in Metro Manila6 ‘The Strategic Private Sector Partnership for Urban Poverty Reduction Project (STEP-UP) is a public-private sector partnership initiative to improve the quality of life in selected communities in Metro Manila. The private sector support is represented by human and financial resources from the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) which is an association of 200 business and enterprises. For implementation of STEP-UP the PBSP received a grant of $3.6 million from the Japanese Fund for Poverty Reduction Program through the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In turn the PBSP was committed to raise $3.33 million in finance and in-kind as counterpart share. This assistance came from civil society but mostly from private sector members of PBSP. Working together with 34 Home Owners Associations (HOAs) the STEP-UP assisted the provision of basic infrastructure in these communities, provided housing improvement loans to 1.350 households, livelihood loans to 852 borrowers and trained 741 persons on skills development. Marketing and networking among PBSP members for resources, and the empowering HOAs were among the main features of STEP-UP. A recent external evaluation of the STEP-UP program found that the housing loan program which has a loan portfolio of P 83.3 million (approx. $ 1.735.417) worth of uncollateralized loans with 95 percent repayment rate as of January 2007. Because of the present global crises this rate may be lower in 2009. These loans are disbursed through HOAs for a maximum of 7 years. The approach of STEP-UP is to work with organized communities that have their tenure issue resolved. Usually, these communities have purchased the land the occupied illegally through loans under the

Interview with Ms. Catherine M. G. Martin, Director DMS The Philippine National Red Cross. April 14, 2011 Source: Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). 2010. Proven Methodologies for Successful Income Generating Projects in Neighborhood Upgrading Programs – Operation Guidelines, Case Study Report: Philippine:s Tondo Foreshore Dagat-Dagatan Development Project. Final Report, Unpublished. 6

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Community Mortgage Program (CMP). Without having to worry about this important asset, and getting basic infrastructure through a grant, households may find it easier and feel encouraged to repay the housing and livelihood improvement loans.’ To overcome budget limitations and lessen the pressure on municipal budgets, innovative government leaders seek partnerships and alliances with the private business sector or access funds from donors or international organizations. The case of the Slum Networking Program in Ahmedabad is another good illustration of a partnership for development that capitalized on the interests of the private sector. Although this partnership dissolved after a few years for a variety of reasons, the approach remains valid as a finance-sharing option that mobilizes communities and the private sector (Box 4.3). Box 4.3: Ahmedabad Slum Networking Project (ASMP): community participation for infrastructure finance7 ‘This approach aimed at the provision of good quality infrastructure that was designed to be both, appropriate to the topography of locations of slums in the city, and affordable to the users. The ASNP used the resources and strengths of the low-income communities, the private sector and the government to transform and revitalize depleted areas through their inclusion in the infrastructure and socio-economic networks of the city. For this partnership low income communities co-financed one third of the cost of on-site infrastructure improvements. Democratically elected Neighbourhood Associations were responsible to mobilize the community share of the cost, to run the socio-economic programs and manage the community assets develop under the project. In addition, beneficiaries contribute each Rs100 to a community fund for maintenance of infrastructure. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) acted as co-financier, contributing one third of on-site physical improvements and 70% of city level developments. In addition to its own resources, the AMC was encouraged to draw from state and national funds and programs. The private partner from the business/industrial sector was represented by Arvind Mills, and acted as co-financier contributing also one third of the on-site improvements. The entrepreneurial, management and technical skills contributed by this private sector partner were channeled through the establishment of the Strategic Help Alliance for Relief to Distressed Areas (SAHRDA) Trust which became the implementing agency of the on-site physical works on behalf of the community.’ The remainder of this chapter explores the implications for policy and practice and the tools that can be employed in putting the key principles for participation and partnership set out in Box 4.4. Box 4.4: Summary of key principles for implementing participation in infrastructure investment in urban resilience  Promote participatory and community-based DRMand CAA policies including increasing community empowerment and community-led participatory approaches to hazard risk management  Institutionalize community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) plans and Integrate disaster risk management into the city development plan (see Chapter 5);  Ensure involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all levels (city, provincial, national) and across sectors to be able to scale-up dissemination of information, preparedness, and implementation of DRM measures including agreeing level of risk and risk measures  Ensure that planned investments reach the most vulnerable populations and sites and undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas.  Promote alliances with civil society organizations and other potential partners – build multistakeholder partnership for: - Leveraging private sector finance and expertise;

Source: Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) (2010) Proven Methodologies for Successful Income Generating Projects in Neighborhood Upgrading Programs – Operation Guidelines, Case Study Report :India: Parivatan and Slum Networking. Final Report, Unpublished

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 



- Technical and advocacy support from civil society; - Longer term asset management; Promote the use of local DRM information base and dissemination mechanisms; Promote capacity building and hazard awareness in stakeholders; - Strengthen the capacity, especially in local government to implement existing laws and regulations exist into operation. - Increase hazard awareness through community-based training, seminars, the media and cultural events; Establish, maintain and ensure effective coordination of institutions and agencies for disaster risk management and response at all levels - Clearly define (or redefine) functional roles and responsibilities for disaster community councils and public safety and emergency response agencies at the appropriate levels. - Ensure good working relation and close coordination between councils, agencies and the local media. Establish a community-based early warning system, communication protocol and evacuation procedures; establish a disaster operation centre for emergency response;

Policies and Practice 4.3

Community participation and mobilization: how to go about it Community participation in sector projects Community participation is a cross cutting issue for mainstreaming resilience. It is an added value in different types of structural and non-structural development interventions across sectors to increase awareness, decrease and mitigate risks and be prepared to respond when disaster strikes. Sectors projects can make use of participatory approaches while mainstreaming resilience, for example in retrofitting infrastructure like hospitals, schools, communication centers, government offices (Box 4.5). Box 4.5: School Earthquake Safety Program (SESP), Nepal8 ‘A study showed that more than 60% of school buildings were highly vulnerable to earthquakes. This prompted the National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) to develop a vulnerability reduction program for the retrofitting of schools in the rural area of the Katmandu Valley. With the assistance of 25 partners and donors, retrofitting measures were implemented in more than 42 schools around the country. This program is very successful in promoting community participation in all components of program activities and to raise earthquake awareness significantly. The masons trained during the program are now spreading the technology of earthquake-resistant construction in their communities and replicating the technology while constructing new buildings. They are also training other masons.’ Resettlement Relocation is often an inevitable part of development, since informal structures may be located in high-risk areas. Problems with resettlement arise when affected people feel they are being relocated not because of risks, but for the profit of others. They are normally sent faraway without sharing in the benefits of new developments. Relocation should be the result of a well-informed and transparent process that involves affected households and city stakeholders in the demarcation of risk areas, selection of relocation sites and procedures as a means to decrease forced relocation as much as possible (se Chapter 5). Compliance with standards of international organizations for relocation as in the case of Ilo-Ilo (Box 4.6) becomes crucial. Resettlement should result from a well-informed and transparent process that involves affected households and city stakeholders. In particular, in order to secure voluntary resettlement and decrease forced relocation as much as possible. They should be fully involved in demarcation of risk areas selection of relocation sites and procedures associated with these.

Source: National Society for Earthquake Technology – Nepal (NSET)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Consideration of the impact on the local economy and social networks is critical, including potential loss of livelihoods and the relocation of at risk businesses. Disruption in operations or in their supply chain and the economic implications at local, community level becomes an important aspect of community-based assessment and analysis and an important part of their adaptation policies.9 Box 4.6: San Isidro Resettlement Project, Ilo-Ilo, Philippines10 The San Isidro Resettlement Project provides housing for affected families of the Iloilo Flood Control Project (IFCP)1. The site is part of a 32 hectare site bought by the government to relocate families affected by the IFCP. The land title has already been transferred to the Riverview HOA. Complying with the resettlement guidelines of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) the Iloilo City Government was required to provide site preparation works which included, land filling and minimal infrastructure. The project is run by the Riverview Home Owners Association (HOA) and the Philippine Action for Community Led Shelter Initiatives Inc. (PACSII) and it is supported by the Iloilo City Urban Poor Network (ICUPN). They play a very valuable role for liaising with civil society organizations, academic institutions and government agencies. Results of these partnerships include among others, the formulation of the environmental study, the conduct of the soil tests, the consolidation of the master-list of socio-economic background and affordability profiles of all applicants. The office of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) carried out the compression test for the Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks being used by beneficiaries and community contractors for house construction. The screening process for membership of the HOA is lengthy, and includes assessment that the family is a Project Affected Family, is willing to contribute to community savings, is able to provide counterpart labour and has the willingness and capacity to pay. A screening committee composed of nine members with representation from HPFPI/PACSII and the ICUPN members warrant transparency of the screening process through making public eligibility criteria and setting up of a transparent selection process. The first 91 units were under construction in May 2010. Directly related to climate change, disaster reduction and relocation is the lack of provision of social housing and solutions for the poor. This is dealt with more fully in Chapter 5, but suffice to note here that, if there have no alternatives, the poor they will continue occupying the cheaper lands more prone to disaster. Preventive relocation goes hand-in-hand with policies that tackle the housing shortage and the ever land availability and land tenure issues. Land readjustment developments in partnership with the private sector, urban upgrading, and re-blocking, as in the case of Manila’s Tondo Foreshore Development Project,11 present alternatives for a more fair distribution of the land and the construction of inclusive cities. Local contexts vary between countries, cities and neighborhoods, as do the approaches and methodologies to engage and mobilize communities and stakeholders. Nevertheless, there are a series of measures and actions that combine top-down and bottom-up efforts that facilitate participation and mobilization of stakeholders and vulnerable communities for mainstreaming DRM and DRR. These include:      

Advocacy for participatory and community-based DRM policies; Use of community-led participatory approaches; Institutionalization of community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) plans; Use of local DRM information base and dissemination mechanisms; Capacity building and awareness; Encouraging alliances with civil society organizations (CSOs) and other potential partners.

Martina K. Linnenluecke, et al (2010) <www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha> Marulanda, L. 2010.Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF), Review April 2010. WSP Group pic. 11 UNESCAP Human Settlments (n.D.) Manila’s Tondo Foreshore <http://www.unescap.org/huset/living/box5.htm> MIT Tondo Urban Development Project <http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/case-examples/ce-PH-ton.html> 10

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

4.4

Policy support for participatory and community-based disaster risk management policies Institutionalization of community-based disaster risk management requires of strong policy support and the existence of a formal organizational structure for DRM. A number of governments are strengthening their commitment to participation by putting in place policies and an institutional framework that assigns rights and responsibilities to stakeholders at all levels, and opens up opportunities for participation of communities, their leaders and organizations, in the decision making process. In South East Asia, Indonesia’s Law 24 of 2007 on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) includes Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM). The case is similar in the Philippines (Law RA 10121 otherwise known as the Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act) and Vietnam with the National Strategy for Natural Disaster Prevention, Response and Mitigation to 2020. Other countries like Cambodia and Vietnam have approved national plans or strategies for DRM or DRR. All of them propose the formulation of some sort of DRM/DRR plan at various levels in a participatory manner. Nevertheless, in some countries, there is the need to advocate for decentralization of institutions and responsibilities so that full advantage can be taken of local resources. Engagement of stakeholders needs to happen within a structured framework that ensures quality process with meaningful participation. Without proper guidance participation could become lip service and conducive to participation fatigue at community level. CBDRM strategies vary from country to country, depending on priorities and resources. Cambodia gives priority to non-structural measures like incorporation of knowledge about disaster in the high school curriculum, provision of practical training on disaster management to communities frequently affected by disasters and the propagation and provision of information on natural disasters using the public media.12 In Vietnam, the National CBDRM Program includes raising community awareness and CBDRM through a number of community-based initiatives and the intensive use of mass media. The main objective is to ensure awareness rising in over 70% of residents in six thousand communes13. The existing policies should be reviewed in the national level brief to identify gaps but the main message here is that, for mainstreaming resilience, there should not be one universal approach but one that responds to country/locally specific conditions.14 The assignment of rights and responsibilities needs to be accompanied by an institutional budget that enables the management structure to function and to put DRM plans in operation. Creative management shall seek to mobilize additional resources from stakeholders and to converge resources from projects and programs. Least but not last, as shown in the case study of Abay Province (see Box 4.7), political will is a crucial factor for responding to the challenges of climate change in a more efficient and responsive manner. Key challenges:  Although laws and regulations exist efforts are needed to strengthen mechanisms to put these into operation.  Many key department and organizations may be involved only at local level, or only at national or provincial level. What is needed is the involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all levels and across sectors to be able to scale-up dissemination of information, preparedness, and implementation of DRM measures.  Ensuring that planned investments reach the most vulnerable populations and sites.

ESCAP et al (2008) Cambodia <http://www.adpc.net/v2007/programs/CBDRM/INFORMATION%20RESOURCE%20CENTER/CBDRM%20Publi cations/2008/final_crcambodia_23nov.pdf> 13 Phương N T (2009) National Strategy Plan on Natural Disaster management and mitigation in Vietnam until 2020, Disaster Management Center, Office of Central Committee for Flood & Storm Control, DIPECHO National consultative meeting. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/12623_NCMVnm.pdf 14 Interview George Soraya, Sri Probo Sudarmo, World Bank, Jakarta. March 28, 2011 WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 4.7: Adapting to climate change – good practice in DRR in Albay Province, Philippines15 Albay is a province located in Bicol Region with a population of approximately one million. The province is highly vulnerable to volcanic eruptions, frequent tropical storms and typhoons that bring destructive winds, heavy rainfall and storm surges. Albay was severely hit by Typhoons Milenyo and Reming in 2006, which resulted in heavy losses in human lives and assets. In response, the following recommendations for good practice were made and subsequently put in place, with the leadership of the provincial authorities: Recommendations for good practice arising out of the experience in Albay Province:  Define (or redefine) functional roles and responsibilities for Disaster Community Councils, their members and task units;  Increase hazard awareness through community-based training and seminars;  Integrate DRR into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP);  Institutionalize the provincial Public Safety and Emergency Management Office (PSEMO)  Establish a Community-Based Early Warning System, communication protocol and evacuation procedures;  Establishment a Disaster Operation Centre for emergency response;  Undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas;  Ensure use of the UN ‘Cluster Approach’ for any recovery program;16  Ensure good working relation and coordination between the PSEMO, warning agencies and the local media. Lessons learned: Provinces or cities that experience severe climate hazards are more likely to be aware and responsive to the need of climate change adaptation; provincial and local governments have the capacity to harness resources to invest in adapting to climate change; champions can be crucial for mainstreaming adaptation; political will of governments is a key ingredient.

4.5

Use of community-led participatory approaches Community-based DRM methodologies began to make inroads during the 1980s and 90s. As has been demonstrated with experiences in various countries in South and South East Asia, community participation in disaster risk management is crucial to create awareness of risks and a ‘culture of prevention’ in the population. Community-led approaches for mainstream resilience and awareness are normally intended to: a) Support an institutional framework that facilitates the management of the DRM program at city and community level. b) Support capacity building and increased awareness at community level for the formulation of disaster management plans and implementation mechanisms at community level. c) Improve performance of local governments for mainstreaming resilience, introduce risk sensitive land use and spatial planning and promote safe new developments. Through the use of community-led interventions communities and other stakeholders are ensured that their knowledge, concepts, concerns and views on copying and adapting to climate changes are used and applied. This include among others:  Decisions for identification and analysis of hazards;  Risks and vulnerability analysis;  Use of local capacities and construction technologies, for site planning including basic infrastructure, needs for relocation and how to proceed;

Strengthening Climate Resilience Programme (SCRP). Province of Albay, Philippines: Responding to the Challenge of DRR and Climate Change Adaptation. The SCR Regional Consultation in Bangkok, Thailand, 22-23 July 2010. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/section/230_Philippinesalbaycasestudy.pdf 16 “The cluster approach clarifies the division of labor between agencies and better defines roles and responsibilities for disaster preparedness and response according to their’ core competencies in operational sectors” Issue 05. Footprints – The Newsletter of the Pacific Disaster Risk Management Partnership Network http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/PDRMPN_2010_Jan_May_Footprintsx.pdf WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 Targeting of interventions based on physical, social and economic considerations, deciding on priorities for implementation and budget allocation for prevention, mitigation and awareness rising measures. Governments in South-East Asia have started to compel local governments to adopt steps to improve Disaster Risk Management (DRM). This includes the formulation of DRM and DRR plans at community level through participatory approaches. A growing number of such initiatives are supported by national and international NGOs and donors.

4.6

DRM information base and community-based dissemination mechanisms A reliable information base at local level is key to support decision-making. This can be produced based on knowledge and perceptions of staff and community members where local governments are not able to access information from more sophisticated technologies. A good base of information will among others, contribute to ensure that urban investment projects for risk mitigation and reduction reach the vulnerable communities. The specific targeting needs to be spelled out since the identification stage and detailed during project preparation and appraisal. Like in the cases of Manizales (Colombia), Can Tho (Vietnam) and Ilo-Ilo (Philippines) city forums and workshops with city stakeholders for gathering information, identifying resources, gaps and needs were used to start up the municipal database. Box 4.8: Chain of communication17 ‘The message was relayed from New Delhi to the Bangladesh authorities in the capital Dhaka, who passed it on to the local Red Crescent office. From there, to get the message out to the 15 of Bangladesh's 64 districts which were affected, a network of 40,000 Red Crescent volunteers, who had been trained specifically for this task, were mobilized. They cycled around the country, using megaphones to order residents into the 1,800 cyclone shelters and 440 flood shelters. By the time Sidr slammed into the coast on 15 November, around two million people were already sheltered.’ One key element is to feed the information from community disaster risk assessments into the overall information system and exchange back the results with the communities. In Sorsogon, Philippines the maps of the identified ‘hotspots’ were superimposed with a visualization of various levels of possible sea level rise scenarios (0.5m, 1m, 2m) and discussed with the affected communities for prioritization of actions. This example, highlights the challenges of integrating global climate change into local and bottom-up levels, relate it to specific locations. This example also highlights the importance of strong linkages between organizations that supply climate information translated in a way that is easily understood at community level. In this way the information from communities can inform national and international data systems and adaptation policy. Dissemination of information at community level is one key factor to reducing risks of disasters. It is important to provide the right information to the people at the right time. Since dissemination is a chain of communication the use of means that facilitate easy access to the masses is critical. The information systems need to establish vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms for effective dissemination (Box 4.9). This is very well illustrated in the case of the dissemination plan Early Warning System for Severe Thunder Storms in Bangladesh and the Radio Station based tsunami early warning system that the Indonesia Red Cross is developing in for Aceh in Indonesia (Box 4.9). Box 4.9: Indonesia: Early warning system takes shape in Aceh18 ‘The radio base station is part of the early warning system is an initiative of the Indonesian Red Cross (Palang Merah Indonesia-PMI). The base station installed at the PMI chapter in Banda Aceh, is part of the over-all Red Cross Red Crescent disaster preparedness program. The radio network will be linked with PMI headquarters in Jakarta, which receives information directly from the Indonesian Government's disaster monitoring agencies. The base station will be followed by the installation of 22 other base stations and 10 repeaters throughout Aceh province. "The Red Cross/Red Crescent is also distributing 300 radio handsets and will have 10 vehicles fully equipped with both Very High Frequency (VHF) and High Frequency (HF) radios to help build up the disaster response capacity of 22 PMI branches. PMI has already trained 80 staff and volunteer radio

Source: Bangladesh: Megaphones save thousands. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75470

Usapdin, T P, IFRC Report from Banda Aceh. http://reliefweb.int/node/213305

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

operators, who will echo the same training to their respective communities. Once the early warning system is completed PMI will conduct a large-scale simulation exercise in Banda Aceh involving partner national Red Cross/Red Crescent societies, the government and other humanitarian aid organizations.’

4.7

Capacity building and awareness Government staff at all levels, stakeholders including poor households need to be aware of the risks they face and the possible consequences of disasters. Citizens will not be actively involved in creating safer environments if they are not fully aware that the possibility of disaster is there. It is unfortunate that in most cases the population only learn about risks, and what they can contribute to prevent their impacts when disaster has already hit them. Using example of disasters, exchanging of information among communities which have experienced them and dwelling on the pain and destruction are some of the dimensions to be taken into account for designing interventions to create, increase awareness of the population.19 Box 4.10: Strengthening community resilience to flood and drought in Cambodia20 ‘Since 1999 up to present, Oxfam, jointly with Cambodian Red Cross and Church World Service (CWS), has provided 13 trainings on disaster preparedness and response to about 600 participants representing National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM), INGOs, CNGOs and the UN. The Oxfam International CBDRR program has three components: community-based flood preparedness, community-based drought preparedness and mitigation, and community-based disaster risk reduction. It works with partners in Kratie for the community-based flood preparedness, in Kampong Speu for community-based drought preparedness and mitigation and inSvay Rieng for community-based disaster risk reduction. A cross-cutting element that ties the three programs is a common goal to reduce risks from disasters, increase resilience of people and communities to drought and flood, and capacitate communities, partners, field staff and local authorities to implement CBDRR strategies…From 2003 to 2006, Oxfam, in cooperation with CCK, implemented a pilot project on Flood Preparedness and Mitigation in 13 villages in Takeo. Local level activities involved preparation of village needs assessments, formulation of village DRR plans, capacity-building on key topics on disaster management, gender, leadership, accountability, community mobilization and climate change, among others. During the project period, Oxfam supported the construction of infrastructure such as flood gates, water catchments and latrines.’

Tools, methods, checklists and information sources 4.8 Asset management and multi-stakeholder partnerships From the point of view of the sustainability of any risk reduction project, or project that addresses the issues of building urban resilience, frameworks for the ongoing management of infrastructure assets need to be put in place. While the involvement of local governments is key in ensuring institutional sustainability and municipalities are likely to assume overall direction in many cases, a multistakeholder partnership should also be considered. This may take the simple form of a public -private partnership between local government and a private sector or NGO service provider. However, a multi-stakeholder partnership in which community leaders and civil society organizations are represented may ensure a greater level of sustainability and effectiveness over the long term. This usually required engaging support organizations (community-friendly consultants or technical aid NGOs) to give technical advice (including monitoring) and advocacy support to communities and other stakeholders who do not have their own professional support. The same or preferably different

Interview George Soraya, Sri Probo Sudarmo World Bank, Jakarta. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), European Commission for Humanitarian Aid (2008) Partnerships for Disaster Reduction-South East Asia – Phase 4, Monitoring and Reporting Progress on Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction in Cambodia <http://www.adpc.net/v2007/programs/CBDRM/INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER/CBDRM Publications/2008/final_crcambodia_23nov.pdf> 20

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

organization with community development and facilitation expertise should be employed to act as a neutral facilitator (see step-by-step process in Figure 4.2)

Figure 4.2: A route from participation to partnership21

4.9

Stakeholder analysis Conceptualizing natural hazard risk in urban areas is a first step in setting out a guidance note for the range of actors and stakeholders â&#x20AC;&#x201C; government, communities, businesses, professionals, NGOs and civil society organizations and individuals households â&#x20AC;&#x201C; who have a role in implementing measures that can realize urban resilience. Mainstreaming resilience in policies of public institutions and

From Lloyd-Jones, T and Carmona, S (2002) Good Practice in Core Area Development: combating poverty through a participatory approach, in Romaya, S and Radoi, C (eds) Building Sustainable Urban Settlements: Approaches and Case Studies in the Developing World. London: ITDG Publishing WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

organizations in essential but it requires the awareness and involvement of all other actors to ensure success. Stakeholder analysis is a tool to identify those people, groups or institutions with interests in or affected by proposed policies, programs, and to help ensure their active role in the decision making process. Stakeholder analysis thus involves the identification of a project's key or primary stakeholders, an assessment of their interests in the project and the ways in which these interests may affect a project. Stakeholders either (a) stand to be affected by the project (in a positive or negative way) or (b) could ‘make or break’ the project’s success. They may be winners or losers, included or excluded from decision-making, project users or otherwise be directly or indirectly affected by its outcomes. The identification of stakeholders should be as specific as possible but also realistic. ‘NGO’ may be vague and you should be specific about the type of NGOs likely to be involved. It may be useful to consider sub-groups at times, for example, particular departments or sections within organizations; or ‘wholesalers’ or ‘retailers’ rather than just ‘traders’ For practical reasons, some initial prioritization of stakeholders may be necessary. A method for doing this is outlined in Box 4.11. Box 4.11: Stakeholder identification22 ‘The individuals, groups, and organizations must be identified that can impact or be impacted by the risk situation and the mitigation measures implemented. The stakeholder mapping instrument is highly useful in identifying key stakeholders with a presence in the area under study, their characteristics, interests, and the degree of influence they can exercise in preparing and implementing the risk reduction plan. As this is an initial stage in which stakeholders are identified and approached, it may be considered a preliminary analysis, to be updated as further consideration is given to the problem and solutions, since the level of influence or power of stakeholders may change or new ones may emerge. The different societal and institutional stakeholders may include:  Population located in the at-risk area. To be identified are its size, the age of the settlement, the political-administrative unit to which the population belongs, its urban or rural setting, the main economic activities it carries out, the socioeconomic level, organizational levels, and the different leaders  Regional and local authorities  Local, regional, or national, public institutions with a presence in the area (programs, personnel, resources)  Private sector organizations (industrial, commercial, or service). To be identified are activities they pursue, their length of time in the area, their role, and other relevant characteristics  Civil society organizations (level of representativeness and organization, programs and activities they pursue, how long in existence, credibility)’ Once stakeholders have been identified, a preliminary analysis of their key characteristics and the dimensions of these should be carried out as indicated in Table 4.1:

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 4.2: Preliminary analysis of key stakeholder characteristics

Stage of project or policy cycle or Type of project

Roles and responsibilities

Interests/motives

Influence/power

Knowledge/awareness

Description

Scale: Significant ….... ….... insignificant

Scale: Strong ….... …… weak

Level of power in this matrix is defined as the capacity of the stakeholder to impede or facilitate actions carried out under the intervention, either directly or through influence over others.23 This preliminary analysis can provide the basis for a matrix mapping the key dimensions against each other, typically and most significantly, interest/motivation mapped against influence and power as a basis for assessing potential involvement, impact and risk (see Figure 4.3):

 DEGREE OF INFLUENCE

High interest Low interest

 DEGREE OF INTEREST

High Influence

Low Influence

Stakeholders who stand to lose or gain significantly from the project and whose actions and decisions can strongly affect the project’s ability to meet its objectives Overall impact of the project will require good relationships to be developed with these stakeholders.

Stakeholders who stand to lose or gain significantly from the project but whose actions are likely to have a limited affect the project’s ability to meet its objectives The project needs to ensure that their interests are fully represented in the decision making process.

Stakeholders whose actions can and decisions affect the project’s ability to meet its objectives but whose interest in the project is limited or indirect, rather than direct They may be a source of risk; and you will need to explore means of monitoring and managing that risk.

Stakeholders who do not stand to lose or gain much from the project and whose actions cannot affect the project’s ability to meet its objectives They are unlikely to be the subject of project activities or involved in project management but may have a shortterm involvement.

Figure 4.3: Matrix for assessing stakeholder involvement, impact and risk Once the more general aspects of stakeholder interest and involvement have been mapped out and the management of the stakeholder involvement process clarified in relation the Project Management Cycle, it is possible then to begin to assess the likely impacts on the project and its resilience/risk management component.

World Bank Resettlement Planning Handbook

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

The manifest or perceived positions of stakeholders in relation to the project may be categorized at four levels:24  In favor  Undecided (without an initial position, but that may become in favor or opposed, depending on information received and stakeholder interests)  Indifferent (stakeholder with presence in the area but that does not identify with the population, is not a part of it, and does not have interests in the area that may be affected)  Opposed The Resettlement Handbook gives the following example: ‘Local authorities who have issued building permits in the risk area may oppose formulating the risk reduction plan because they will lose credibility, and therefore, potentially votes in future elections. Interests of any private builders implementing housing programs in the affected area will be impacted and they may therefore oppose dissemination of the plan, or may support it if the measures improve their project’s safety conditions. The populations may be undecided – on one hand, they may fear that their property values will decline, but on the other may fear the risk they may confront.’25 Box 4.12: Final stage of stakeholder analysis26 Based on the preliminary analysis, a stakeholder matrix is prepared as in the table below: Each stakeholder is entered in the matrix, identified by position and level of power, to serve as input for the participation strategy and for plan formulation and implementation. Stakeholder analysis also makes it possible to identify different potential forms of participation by stakeholders in preparing and implementing the risk reduction plan and their potential contributions (information, technology, capital, labor, and financial and human resources, among others). Level of power

Position regarding risk reduction plan In favour

Undecided

Indifferent

Opposed

High Moderate Low Stakeholder analysis yields:  Societal and institutional stakeholders identified;  The stakeholder matrix developed, containing positions regarding the risk reduction plan and level of power in connection with it;  Potential forms of participation by the different stakeholders identified.

4.10 Summary steps to implement CBDRM plans There are different approaches and methodologies formulated to fit local conditions but in general they cover the following steps: Project Preparation  Introduction of the project in the community: Introduction of topics and process through meetings with leaders and residents.  Development of community profile: Identification of hazards and collection of data on environmental, institutional, social and economic conditions to identify most vulnerable groups and locations, existing community organization and leaders, available resources and ongoing

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

programs and projects. One of the main activities at this stage is the generation or procurement of multi-hazard and thematic maps combining spatial analysis and local knowledge of communities. ď&#x201A;§ Tools for community profiling: Hazards mapping, transect walks, timelines, historical profiles and seasonal calendars. Production of visual material through video and photography and scale models of the locations. Other tools to gather information include structured and semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and community consultations.

Figure 4.4: Different mapping techniques for gathering of information and to facilitate understanding of issues in Leogane in Haiti and photographic profile of a village Banda Aceh, Indonesia27

Source: Marulanda, L in German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) (2007) Guidebook for Community Action Planning (CAP) To Support Community Driven Reconstruction and Development, Module 3: CommunityBased Geo Risk-Based Management. Support for Local Governance for Sustainable Reconstruction (SLGSR) Program, Banda Aceh.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 4.5: Building a 3D scale model of the neighborhood with participation of the community in Lombok, Indonesia28 Project Planning Community risk and vulnerability assessment: The analysis and evaluation of risks and vulnerability includes identification of at risk people and elements. Vulnerability has a direct link to development and the identified inequalities or weaknesses are the reflection of the deficiencies of the social, economic and physical development of a city or area. This is why in most cases the most vulnerable people are the poor who normally live in informally occupied locations, which are prone to disasters, and who cannot afford basic infrastructure and social services. Since local conditions vary from location to location, a variety of approaches and methodologies to conduct risk and vulnerability assessments has been developed. For example, based on the experience developed with years of German-Indonesia cooperation a simple but comprehensive set of steps is recommended for conducting Participatory Risk Assessments (PRA): 1) Delineation and definition of hazard zones; 2) Assessment of figures for the number of people at risk in hazard zones, if possible distinguishing by social groups; 3) Appraisal of the number of households exposed, if possible distinguishing by type of household; 4) Identification of critical infrastructure objects exposed to hazard; 5) Estimation of economic values at risk; 6) Appraisal of potential economic losses associated with hazards.29 The hotspot is another approach that involves stakeholders in identification of most vulnerable areas of a city or neighborhood creating a location focus for prioritization of actions. It is very often used for risk and vulnerability assessment and analysis. Good examples of application of this approach include Ilo-Ilo30 and Sorsogon in the Phlippines and Can Tho in Vietnam. A list of key activities followed in the case in Sorsogon for the vulnerability assessment is included in Box 4.13. Box 4.13: Key activities for vulnerability assessment in Sorsogon, Phlippines1     

Formation of Technical Working Group Definition and agreement on objective and framework Localizing of climate change scenario/exposure Assessment of sensitivities (hotspots) Ground truthing of findings through FGDs with communities

Prevention Consortium (http://www.proventionconsortium.org) has developed a very comprehensive and friendly to use Community Risk Assessment Tool Kit that contains a registry of methodological resources and 35 case studies, a search tool, a glossary of terms and links to Community Risk Assessment (CRA), CBDRM and participation materials. Indicators for Disaster Risk Assessment: Indicators for DR&V assessment and analysis include components of sectors related to hazard probability and severity, physical and demographic aspects,

Marulanda, L (2007); Marulanda, L (2003) Guidebook for Community Action Planning (CAP) User Guide for Neighbourhood Development, Urban Quality Program of the German Technical Cooperation Agency, Municipal Management Instruments, No. 1 of 2003: Community Action Planning, Indonesia. Unpublished; 29 German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Department of Energy and Mineral Resources, Ministry of Home Affairs, Indonesia. Mitigation of Geohazards in Indonesia Status Report on the project ‘Civil-society and inter-municipal cooperation for better urban services / Mitigation of Geohazards’ A contribution to the World Conference on Disaster Reduction Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. http://www.bgr.bund.de/nn_333592/DE/Themen/Georisiko/Downloads/mitigation__geohazards__indonesia,templ ateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/mitigation_geohazards_indonesia.pdf 30 Kessler, K, Bantayan, N, Ebay, J, Espia, J C and Lumanog, E (2010) Guide for Local Government Units, Planning a Resilient Future: Technical Assistance Program for Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. World Bank, Global Fund for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (WB-GFDRR), Unpublished. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

social, economic, and cultural characteristics, managerial, institutional and economic factors. A comprehensive set of indicators is included in Annex 2. Participatory tools for vulnerability assessment: Hazard and vulnerability mapping, problem tree, SWOT, seasonal calendar, livelihood analysis, transect walk, ranking matrix, theater plays, puppet shows. Other examples of participatory tools and their use for community based adaptation from an IIED31 publication are included in Annex 2 of this section.

Figure 4.6: Examples of multi hazard maps for risk assessment and analysis produced with participation of villagers after the tsunami in Banda Aceh32 Box 4.14: Communicating risk and responses through children’s theatre in the Rizal, the Philippines33 ‘The Philippines ‘Buklod ng Kabataan’ (Children Bonded Together), a group of children and youth in Banaba, has become an effective advocate of DRR and adaptation through theatre performances. Using singing, dancing, and acting, they communicated their perceptions of local hazards such as flooding and river bank erosion, and the potentially destructive impacts of these hazards on people’s livelihoods, properties, and lives. The group also became dynamic communicators of risk reduction activities such as tree planting and solid waste management which can achieve a cleaner environment, fresh air, stabilise river banks and reduce river pollution, and reduce health risks. Through their advocacy, different sectors of the community and stakeholders up to the national scale were encouraged to take action.’ Formulation and institutionalization of risk sensitive Community Action Plan: Planning with the participation of communities requires of a structured process. Although in some instances methodologies are tailor-made to suit specific programs, there is a variety of them that have the potential to be adjusted to specific circumstances and shall be used to motivate engagement of people for planning DRR and DRM interventions (Box 5.8). Participatory planning need to stress interaction and communication these will impact the quality of the process. Whatever the chosen methodology, the result should be a feasible plan with actions and resources agreed by all stakeholders. As illustrated in Box 4.15 there are a variety of methodologies for community-led planning which can be very effective when properly facilitated. The important issue is that the content of the planning process is based on identified hazards, the results of the risk and vulnerability analysis in combination

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 2009. Community-based adaptation to climate change in Participatory Learning and Action 60, UK. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14573IIED.pdf  32 Source: Marulanda, L in German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) (2007) Guidebook for Community Action Planning (CAP) To Support Community Driven Reconstruction and Development, Module 3: CommunityBased Geo Risk-Based Management. Support for Local Governance for Sustainable Reconstruction (SLGSR) Program, Banda Aceh. Unpublished. 33 Source: Tanner, T, Garcia, M, Lazcano, J, Molina, F, Molina, G, Rodriguez, G, Tribunalo, B and Seballos. F (2009) Children’s participation in community-based disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change, Participatory Learning and Action 60: Community-based adaptation to climate change. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14573IIED.pdf

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

with technical/scientific data. Thus communities, as well as other partners, are confronted with the realities of the level of risk of their lives and the locations where they live and their assets. Risk sensitive planning will analyze peoples, structures and locations at risk and come out with an action plan to avoid, decrease, mitigate, prepare and respond to disasters. This shall include structural and non-structural measures across sectors e.g. design of escape routes, community safe heavens, retrofitting of infrastructure, land use plan with demarcation of buildable and unbuildable lands; management plans; hazard/risk related management plans: Fire management plan, earthquake response plan, water related hazards/risks management plans; relocation plans, etc. Community understanding of their risk is necessary for their mobilization towards finding solutions and commit to their implementation. Box 4.15: Examples of methodologies for CBDRM planning Community Action Planning (CAP) is a problem solving related process that seeks, in a structured manner, the participation and contributions of community members and assists to define actions and commitments from all stakeholders towards solving priority problems (Who does What, How, When and at What Cost). Since it is highly participatory, this method facilitates the appropriation of the plan by the community. Result Oriented Planning is a ‘process which an organization uses to ensure that its processes, procedures, products and services are oriented towards impacts. Result oriented management processes do not invalidate prior planning and management processes, but provide them with a different orientation, or complement them’. Planning for Real is another planning methodology that is participatory friendly. It has developed a good set of tools to facilitate engagement of residents in the decision making process that shapes their environment.34 Institutionalization includes the introduction of results in the special and financial plans of the municipality and the linking of certain tasks within local, regional and national level systems and institutions. There is the need to link risk-sensitive community-based plans to spatial and development plans. The direct consequence of such integration is that there is no need for an ad-hoc budget for DRR measures but these should be covered by the regular budget for regular development investments and therefore increased likelihood of implementation. Some challenges for the institutionalization of community-based plans include lack of recognition by local governments of disaster risk reduction (DRR) as a development concern; limited understanding of DRM issues at community level, lack of understanding of the community about the laws and mechanisms to mainstream DRM35, and lack of political will for budget allocation. Project implementation Formation of CB management organization: To put in motion the planned activities is necessary the formation of community-based disaster risk management organization accountable for implementation of DRM plans and coordination of field activities with other levels within the organizational structure and the chain of tasks. “Community mobilization activities usually include: (a) conducting a facilitated community needs assessment to develop local knowledge about local stakeholders and conditions; (b) hiring field facilitators to mobilize the community to participate in the project, including communication of project goals and rules of the game and to provide assistance in developing project proposals; and (c) requiring transparent and open procedures for prioritizing investment proposals”. To further promote inclusive processes the formation of project committees ensuring representation of vulnerable groups is recommended. “In many programs, community project committees are provided small budgets to cover incremental costs of managing microprojects. Creative mechanisms are used in making sure that the poor and marginalized are as well informed as the community leadership, including development of outreach materials in local

Details on the methodology and corresponding tools are available at http://www.planningforreal.org.uk/. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), European Commission for Humanitarian Aid. 2008. Partnerships for Disaster Reduction-South East Asia - Phase 4, Monitoring and Reporting Progress on Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia. http://www.adpc.net/v2007/programs/CBDRM/INFORMATION%20RESOURCE%20CENTER/CBDRM%20Public ations/2008/final_crindonesia_23nov.pdf 35

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

languages, use of radio and community theater where literacy is low, dissemination through alternate channels of local stakeholders.36”. Participatory monitoring, evaluation and introduction of adjustments: Permanent monitoring and periodic evaluation assist to keep track of the performance of the activities in order to identify constraints, bottlenecks and solutions to problems that arise during the project cycle. The ability to monitor and be aware of changes enables the community to sustain the projects. The core principles of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) are:  Primary stakeholders are active participants – not just sources of information,  Building capacity of local people to analyze, reflect and take action,  Joint learning of stakeholders at various levels.37 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are designed as part of the planning exercise that defines the actions, timetables, budgets and resources. According to these, a set of indicators to measure progress on achieving objectives, results and impacts is built. Indicators are measured on agreed intervals to check on bottlenecks, solutions and adjustments to activities or to the process. The following steps are recommended to establish PM&E at community level:  Introduction of concept and its value,  Development of the system together with the community,  Monitoring of activities,  Evaluation and introduction of adjustments. Methods, Tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation include activities chart, agenda of activities, Citizens Report Cards, meetings, workshops, action planning sessions, worksheets to register information, photographic records.

4.11 The Citizen’s Report Card The Citizens Report Card (CRC) is an instrument that facilitates an assessment of government performance from the perspective of the citizens. “The first report card was used in Bangalore to assess public services in 1994. It covered municipal services, water supply, electricity, telecom and transport. Since then, Public Affairs Centre (PAC) which was set up in Bangalore by the small group of citizens has brought out report cards on several other cities, rural services and also on specific sectoral services such as health care. Stratified random sample surveys using well-structured questionnaires are the basis on which report cards are prepared. It is generally assumed that people from similar backgrounds in terms of education, culture, etc., are likely to use comparable standards in their assessments. But these standards may be higher for higher income groups than for the poor whose expectations about public services tend to be much lower. Dividing households into relatively homogenous categories is one way to minimize the biases that differing standards can cause.’38 After the conduction of the survey the results need to be analyzed and disseminated. Communities need to be trained and empower, so that a two-way communication with the government and other organizations involved can take place.

Julie Van Domelen. 2007. Reaching the Poor and Vulnerable: Targeting Strategies for Social Funds and other Community-Driven Programs. Social Protection Team, Human Development Network, World Bank, JEL: I38 Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs, H54 - Infrastructures; Other Public Investment and Capital Stock, O10 - General Economic Development. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Social-FundsDP/0711.pdf 37 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation http://go.worldbank.org/G966Z73P30 38 This document contains detailed information on how this card was developed and the outcomes of such a tool: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK. 2004. Holding the State to Account through Citizen Report Cards in India by Samuel Paul . A case study from Reducing Poverty, Sustaining Growth - What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why; A Global Exchange for Scaling Up Success Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference Shanghai, May 2004 <http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/12/27/000090341_20041227134108/Ren dered/PDF/308240IN0Citiz1rds01see0also0307591.pdf>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

The Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction is a good example on how civil society organizations and communities can hold governments accountable. They can influence governments to be responsive and effective. The network enables them to have first hand information on progress being made and the quality of interventions for disaster prevention, mitigation, preparation and response at all levels. Since it is global and well recognized, it has influence and a voice in the international arena to influence policies. It supports local efforts, inclusive approaches and grass-roots approaches for DRM.

4.12 Key references  <http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/Publications_Handbook_RAP> International Finance Corporation (2002) Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, Environment and Social Development Department, IFC, the World Bank Group, Washington DC  <www.adpc.net/pdr-sea/publications/12handbk.pdf> Community-Based Disaster Risk Management - field practitioners’ handbook of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), “The CBDRM Field Practitioners’ Handbook helps to equip CBDM or CBDRM practitioners with theories and practical tools that can be applied in community work”.  <http://www.adpc.net/pdrsea/pubs/curriculum-cbdrm.pdf> Community-Based Disaster Risk Management for Local Authorities: Participant’s Workbook of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). ‘This is an excellent tool to facilitate the capacity building of local government officials on Community-based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) in PDRSEA target countries including Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Timor Léste and Vietnam. It is expected that the workbook will be adapted and used by National Disaster Management Offices (NDMO) and NGOs in the countries of South East Asia for training the local government officials.’  <http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=43> This is a link to a very comprehensive and friendly to use Community Risk Assessment Tool Kit that contains a registry of methodological resources and 35 case studies, a search tool, a glossary of terms and links to Community Risk Assessment (CRA) , CBDRM and participation materials developed by the Prevention Consortium  <http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14573IIED.pdf> Participatory Learning and Action 60: Communitybased adaptation to climate change, UK. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Includes examples of a good variety of participatory tools used in Community Based Adaptation (CBA).  <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussionpapers/Social-Funds-DP/0711.pdf> Van Domelen, J (n.d.) Reaching the Poor and Vulnerable: Targeting Strategies for Social Funds and other Community-Driven Program. For the Social Protection Team, Human Development Network, World Bank, JEL:I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs, H54 - Infrastructures; Other Public Investment and Capital Stock, O10 - General Economic Development. ‘The main objective of this toolkit is to enhance program design to better serve the poor… designed to provide technical staff in the Bank and client Governments with the concepts, empirical evidence, noteworthy case studies of different approaches and the operational elements necessary to develop more comprehensive poverty and vulnerability targeting mechanisms.’  <http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/MM_scoping_study.pdf> Benson, C and Twigg, J (n.d.) Measuring Mitigation: Methodologies for Assessing Natural Hazard Risks and the Net Benefits of Mitigation – A Scoping Studying, The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies/the ProVention Consortium, Switzerland.’…reviews agency project documentation and related guidelines and procedures, organized around the different stages of the project cycle. It draws conclusions and makes policy recommendations on how risks emanating from natural hazards are currently handled in project appraisal and evaluation, and the scope and need for an improvement in practices.’  <http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2007/firstsession/docs/side_events/June_7_Thu/09_Working_towards_Community_Resiliance_in_AsiaPacific/UNESCAP_ADPC_Presentation.pdf>  Power point presentation of the Partnership for Disaster Reduction in South East Asia: The UNESCAP and ADPC Experience. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP). The knowledge, expertise and experience of this partnership is extremely relevant for mainstreaming resilience in SEA countries.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 <http://www.preventionweb.net/files/596_10307.pdf> Building Disaster Resilient Communities: Good Practices and Lessons Learned, is a Publication of the ‘Global Network of NGOs’ for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. 100 case studies that highlights the essential roles played by (mostly local) NGOs in addressing disaster risks at the local community level, with support from international NGOs, donors, and regional organizations. ‘The good practices selected also reflect the way disaster risk reduction is “understood” and implemented in different regions, and offer unique perspectives of and approaches to CBDRR.’  <http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/programsnprojects/Performance_Challenge_Fund_for_LGUs. pdf>Detailed description of the Performance Challenge Fund for Local Government Units. Resources from this fund in Philippines can be accessed by municipalities for projects and programs for DRR and DRM

4.13 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers, and project design and assessment checklist See Tables 4.3 and 4.4 below

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 4.3: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and

checklist for policy makers General good practice and policy recommendations:

National/regional level*

City level**

1. Promote participatory and community-based DRM and CAA policies including increasing community empowerment and community-led participatory approaches to hazard risk assessment and management.



Do existing or proposed national DRM and CAA policies and guidance provide for community empowerment and community-led participatory approaches to hazard risk assessment and management?



Do existing or proposed citylevel DRM and CAA strategies provide for community empowerment and community-led participatory approaches to hazard risk management?

2. Institutionalize community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) plans and Integrate disaster risk management into the city development plan (see Chapter 5).



Do existing or proposed urban planning policies and guidance integrate CBDRM plans?



Do city development plans and guidance integrate CBDRM plans?

3. Ensure involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all levels (city, regional/provincial, national) and across sectors to be able to scale-up dissemination of information, preparedness, and implementation of DRM measures including agreeing level of risk and risk measures.



Do institutions and frameworks for involving relevant stakeholders exist at national, regional and local government levels for DRM and agreeing level of risk and risk measures?



Are there effective institutions and frameworks for involving relevant stakeholders at city regional and local government levels for DRM and agreeing level of hazard risk and risk measures?

4. Ensure that planned investments reach the most vulnerable populations and exposed sites and undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas.



Do existing or proposed national policies ensure investment is directed towards protecting the most vulnerable populations from hazard risk with preventive relocation where necessary?



Are city infrastructure investment strategies designed to reach the most vulnerable populations and exposed sites and undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas?

5. Promote alliances with civil society organizations and other potential partners – build multi-stakeholder partnerships for:  Leveraging private sector finance and expertise;  Technical and advocacy support from civil society;  Longer term asset management.



Do existing or proposed national policies and guidance promote multi-stakeholder networks and partnerships with the private sector and civil society for infrastructure development and long-term asset management?



Do existing or proposed city development strategies include multi-stakeholder networks and partnerships with the private sector and civil society for infrastructure development and long-term asset management?

6. Promote the use of local DRM information bases and dissemination mechanisms.



Do existing or proposed national DRM and CAA policies and guidance promote the use of local DRM information bases and dissemination mechanisms.



Do existing or proposed citylevel DRM and CAA strategies provide for the development and use of local DRM information bases and dissemination mechanisms.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

7. Promote capacity building and hazard awareness in stakeholders;  Strengthen the capacity, especially in local government to implement proposed laws and regulations and promote hazard awareness.



Increase hazard awareness through community-based education, training, seminars, the media and cultural events.



Do existing or proposed national policies ensure investment is directed towards strengthening the capacity of regional and local government to implement laws and regulations and promote hazard awareness?



Do existing or proposed citylevel policies include budgetary provision for strengthening local government capacity to implement laws and regulations and promote hazard awareness?



Is there budgetary provision for community level training, events and seminars to raise hazard awareness? Is there a national policy for teaching hazard awareness in schools? Is the media engaged in promoting hazard awareness at the national level?



Is there budgetary provision for community level training and seminars and cultural events to raise hazard awareness? Is hazard awareness taught in local schools? Is the local media engaged in promoting hazard awareness?

Do existing or proposed national DRM and emergency policies and guidance provide for creating disaster community councils and public safety and emergency response agencies at the appropriate levels? Do they provide for disaster operation centers for emergency response at the local level? Do they provide for periodic review of the organizations’ functional roles and responsibilities and close and effective coordination?



Do existing or proposed national DRM policies and guidance ensure that national early warning systems are effective at the local level (‘last mile’) through communitybased early warning systems, communication protocols and evacuation procedures?



8. Establish, maintain and ensure effective coordination of institutions and agencies for disaster risk management and response at all levels:  Clearly define (or review) functional roles and responsibilities for disaster community councils and public safety and emergency response agencies at the appropriate levels.  Ensure good working relations and close coordination between councils, agencies and the local media



9. Establish a community-based early warning system, communication protocol and evacuation procedures.



 



Do existing or proposed citylevel DRM strategies provide for creating disaster community councils and their co-ordination with local public safety and emergency response agencies and the local media? Is there a disaster operation centers for emergency response at the local level? Is there provision for periodic review of the organizations’ functional roles and responsibilities?

Are there existing or proposed ‘last mile’ community-based early warning systems, communication protocols and evacuation procedures?

* World Bank Project Management Cycle; PMC1 Country Assistance Strategy ** PMC2 Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and board approval PMC4 Implementation and supervision PMC5 Implementation and completion; PMC6 Evaluation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 4.4: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and

project design and assessment checklist General good practice and policy recommendations: 10. Promote participatory and community-based DRM and CAA policies including increasing community empowerment and community-led participatory approaches to hazard risk assessment and management.

Project checklist for task managers: * 



Does the project provide mechanisms for empowerment and engagement of urban communities where necessary? Are communities engaged in participatory risk assessment and ‘ground truthing’ related to the project?

11. Institutionalize community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) plans and Integrate disaster risk management into the city development plan (see Chapter 5).

12. Ensure involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all levels (city, regional/provincial, national) and across sectors to be able to scaleup dissemination of information, preparedness, and implementation of DRM measures including agreeing level of risk and risk measures.



Does the project provide mechanisms for the participation of all relevant stakeholders in decisions regarding its risk assessment, development and long-term asset management?

13. Ensure that planned investments reach the most vulnerable populations and exposed sites and undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas.



Does the project include investment into measures designed to reach the most vulnerable populations and exposed sites and undertake preventive relocation of people from high-risk areas?

14. Promote alliances with civil society organizations and other potential partners – build multi-stakeholder partnerships for:  Leveraging private sector finance and expertise;  Technical and advocacy support from civil society;  Longer term asset management.



Does the project involve multistakeholder networks and partnerships with the private sector and civil society for infrastructure development and long-term asset management?

15. Promote the use of local DRM information bases and dissemination mechanisms.



Does the project provide for the development and use of local DRM information bases and dissemination mechanisms where necessary?

16. Promote capacity building and hazard awareness in stakeholders;  Strengthen the capacity, especially in local government to implement proposed laws and regulations and promote hazard awareness.



Does the project provide for capacity building for local government and for other key stakeholders where necessary?

Increase hazard awareness through community-based education, training, seminars, the media and cultural events.



Does the project promote community level training seminars and events to raise hazard awareness?



WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

17. Establish, maintain and ensure effective coordination of institutions and agencies for disaster risk management and response at all levels:  Clearly define (or review) functional roles and responsibilities for disaster community councils and public safety and emergency response agencies at the appropriate levels.  Ensure good working relations and close coordination between councils, agencies and the local media



Does the project provide links and ongoing coordination with local institutions and agencies for disaster risk management and response?

18. Establish a community-based early warning system, communication protocol and evacuation procedures.



Does the project provide links and ongoing coordination with existing or proposed ‘last mile’ community-based early warning systems, communication protocols and evacuation procedures?

* PMC2 Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and board approval PMC4 Implementation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Urban planning for resilience Urban planning is among the most cost-effective ways to realize the benefits of resilience. It offers the tools to protect inhabitants, particularly poor populations, and economic assets from environmental hazards in the most exposed locations. Urban planning is a necessary instrument in identifying the safest areas for development, determining what facilities can be built in locations exposed to hazards or where structural measures may be necessary to protect inhabitants and physical development. However, it is also a highly politicized process subject to competing and vested interests. In this respect, good planning and good governance are part and parcel of the same process (see Chapter 3). The tools, procedures and professional expertise for policy-making, negotiation, compliance with regulations and incentivization add time, human resource and financial cost to the urban planning process in shaping development. However, they are essential if planning is to achieve urban development and infrastructure investment that is safe and equitable.

Overview 5.1

What urban planning can achieve In terms of the risk triangle, planning can contribute to risk reduction in all three dimensions: a) Reducing exposure through avoiding locating development in hazardous locations and planned re-location; b) Reducing vulnerability through ensuring that urban development is well designed, meets adequate safety standards, contributes to improving social and economic well-being and reinforces social capital and cultural identity; c) Reducing (or avoiding increasing) the level of hazard through sustainable urban development and effective environmental planning. Cities have always grappled with balancing the environmental hazard risk concerns against the economic and social imperatives of land development. The uncertainties associated with climate change, and the long-term perspective on use of resources that it implies, have given a significant added impetus to this process (see Box 5.15). This chapter focuses on physical development planning, in particular the urban use and development of land, and the good practice principles that ensure this takes place in a way that contributes to building urban resilience. This includes incorporating adaptability, lesson learning and the possibility of meeting human development aims and needs within a wide range of highly uncertain conditions. Planning is primarily a tool for managing the use and development of land to reconcile the interests of landowners and developers on the one hand with those of the wider community (including long term sustainable development objectives) on the other. However, high standards of physical planning need to be applied in any infrastructure investment project, regardless of the regulatory environment, and international good practice should be referred to. Any urban development that results directly (as in resettlement) or indirectly from infrastructure investment will be shaped and managed by the statutory planning process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; thus the importance of having both an effective regulatory framework and the means in place to implement it. Municipalities frequently fail to translate statutory strategic urban plans into positive action on the ground. Part of any major infrastructure investment will almost certainly need to be directed to other â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;nonstructuralâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; risk reduction processes, in particular the strengthening of municipal institutions and capacity building. Part of this effort should be dedicated to strengthening financial management at the municipal level and the ability to raise local revenues, for example through property taxes. This is currently a major constraint on mainstreaming long-term resilience and sustainability into local government practice in al developing countries. Community participation and full stakeholder buy-in is critical to the success of any planning efforts that guide infrastructure investment. A careful poverty-focused consideration of the urban design and site planning aspects at the local level and the impacts on social and economic conditions is

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

essential. This should be guided by participatory action planning, once the strategic planning concept, agreed with key stakeholders, is in place. Planning goes under many names and covers a range of fields each with a different emphasis in terms of scope or application. Box 5.1 provides a brief glossary of key terms currently in use. Box 5.1: Distinguishing between different types of planning Physical Planning is a generic term covering all types of activity, statutory or otherwise, relating to the use of land and physical and spatial configurations of its development prior to detailed architectural and engineering design. Land Use Planning refers to the creation of public policies and statutory plans (‘Local Development Plans’, Zoning or ‘Master Plans’) used for managing and controlling development. As well as determining use, land use plans normally contain measures for controlling the density and form of development. Development Planning can refer to land use planning but is often used in the wider sense to also include related social and economic planning in developing countries. Environmental Planning in the context of this guide, is land and natural resource planning at the larger national or regional scale that has a key role to play in reducing risk (see Chapter 6).1 Urban and Regional Planning is a generic term closely associated with sub national and municipal land management statutes and policies. it provides the broad administrative framework within which land use and environmental planning take place. Urban and regional planning is concerned with general resource management and so will be closely linked to strategic and local economic development and regeneration led by municipalities or other state agencies. Urban (City or Town) Planning is often treated independently of Rural or Country Planning with very different issues to address. However, there is a strongly supported view,2 reflected in this guide, that urban and rural areas are closely economically and socially inter-linked and should be viewed as a spatial continuum to be dealt with within the single framework of urban and regional planning. City Region Planning is a specific urban and regional planning approach that draws on concepts from central place theory,3 agglomeration economics and the theory of city networks,4 as well as addressing the urban-rural linkages issues. Spatial Planning is a more recent term supplanting urban and regional planning whilst covering a similar but more broadly defined scope. European in origin,5 the term has gained popularity and is found in use in some parts of East Asia and Pacific e.g. Indonesia. It is concerned with the structuring of activities in space and the spatial co-ordination of sectoral policies and related public (or public-private) investment.6 It encompasses policy-related physical planning at all scales, from

At the city and local or site level, environmental planning has traditionally been dealt with under the disciplines of Landscape Planning on the one hand and Environmental Health and Services on the other. 2

See: Tacoli, C (2006) The Earthscan Reader in Rural-Urban Linkages, London: Earthscan The idea of systems of cities based on their catchment areas first formulated by the German geographer, Walter Christaller: Christaller, W (1933) Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (Translated (in part), by Charlisle W. Baskin (1966) as Central Places in Southern Germany. Prentice Hall 4 Agglomeration economics – see Quigley J M (2008) Urbanization, Agglomeration, and Economic Development. Working Paper no 19. Commission on Growth and Development. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank on behalf of the Commission on Growth and Development <http://www.growthcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=101&Itemid=19>. City network theory – see: Pflieger G and Rozenblat C (2010) ‘Introduction. Urban Networks and Network Theory: The City as the Connector of Multiple Networks’ Urban Studies November 2010 47: 2723-2735). These two theories provide an economic rationale for the emergence of conurbations, urban corridors and clusters as well broader collections of more remotely linked ‘global cities’. Sir Patrick Geddes first used the term conurbation in his book, Cities in Evolution (1915). 5 The term first came into prominence in the context of cross-border territorial development within the European Union. 6 ‘Spatial planning refers to the methods used largely by the public sector to influence the future distribution of activities in space. It is undertaken with the aim of producing a more rational organization of activities in space, including the linkages between them; and to balancing development with the need to protect the environment’: Shaw and Nadin (1997) EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, CEC. 1997. 3

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

the supra national, though national and sub-national down to the citywide and neighborhood scale. It is a useful envelope for more sector-focused types of planning such as transport, environmental or land use planning. Strategic concept plans are diagrams that set out the strategic objectives and spatial development concept (s). This type of plan is helpful in visualizing the broad shape of future development (and exploring different scenarios for this) indicating for example, the location of new transport infrastructure that will have the most influence of the future physical form of the city. Master Plans normally imply a physical plan of some kind though may also refer to a statutory documents or series of documents (municipal development plans) that includes physical plans as well as written policies associated with them. Master plans are also produced by urban designers at the local level designers as briefing documents for architects and engineers for particular development sites. Spatial Development Frameworks usually employed at the citywide or district-wide scale represent a more flexible approach to physical planning than the traditional ‘end-goal’ or ‘blueprint’ master plan based on rigid land use zoning. They allow for flexibility, adaptation and contingency in the planning process. Urban Design overlaps with physical planning and employs many of the same tools to manage built development such as floor area or plot ratio to control the heights of buildings or designated setbacks between buildings to manage density, private and public space.7 Urban design, however, is more concerned with the three dimensional character of built form, its identity and social and cultural value. It is focused on promoting the qualities of streets and public spaces as connecting elements for social and communal life and has a more flexible approach to the mixing of uses within buildings and areas than traditional zoned land use plans. Historically, urban design has been closely associated with a community-based planning approach. Site planning is an aspect of urban design concerned with the physical planning of individual development sites (for which also local master plans or development briefs are sometimes prepared). Urban Conservation is concerned with the historic preservation of culturally valued built assets; urban design should have a central role where preserving and rehabilitating historical buildings and areas is an issue. Urban Renewal and Urban Regeneration are terms used interchangeably depending on geographical location (and each language has its own particular interpretation of all the terms described here). The term urban renewal is older and tends to be applied to the physical renewal of the urban fabric, often implying comprehensive redevelopment of an area regarded as functionally obsolete. Regeneration carries the connotation of social and economic revival of an area in decline and may involve extensive rehabilitation or upgrading of the physical environment along with elements of renewal. Urban Upgrading is normally applied to (mainly low income) informal developments that have yet to achieve an acceptable environmental standard, particularly in the areas of water, sanitation and drainage, solid waste management and physical access. Action Planning is local level participatory physical planning (see Chapter 4) or sector-based planning aimed at implementing more strategic, city-level planning policies. Formal development is development that has been carried out with official planning approval. Informal development has no such sanction and can be subject to demolition orders if post hoc approval is not granted. In some cases, risk-based planning is a question of instituting new strategic planning approaches. Master plans or spatial development frameworks (see Box 5.1) provide the context for risk reduction

Plot or floor area ratio (FAR) is a ratio applied to area of a site and gives the permitted floor space for that site. An FAR of 3 means that a maximum total floor space of three times the area of the site is permitted. If the building covers 20% of the site area, it can go up to 15 storeys. The building footprint (or floor-plate) is determined by space planning and setback rules and sometimes planning regulations indicate a permitted coverage as a percent of the site area. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

within which normal planning and development processes, and disaster-specific reduction measures, can be located. Where such strategic frameworks are already in place and have the necessary legal basis, they should be subject to critical review to determine their efficacy in addressing particular risks, including long term risks associated with climate change. This should be part of the initial city brief process as it addresses the urban governance context (see Chapter 1). Where interventions are proposed to resettle populations or to upgrade or rehabilitate existing neighborhoods to reduce environmental hazard risk, urban design should be used as a tool for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement. Participatory action plans for local areas (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors) should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach..8 Box 5.2: Strategic Plan for National Spatial Development in Taiwan9 Taiwan is at risk from multiple hazards. Typhoons, land and mudslides have claimed thousand of lives and the island lies in an earthquake zone. It has recently published a Strategic Plan for National Spatial Development. Although primarily focused on the economic development of the country along its eastern and western coastal industrial corridors, one of the pillars of the plan to ‘build a sustainable society’ is ‘safe nature and ecology’ including managing environmental hazard risk. This includes comprehensive governance of river basins, building green infrastructure and enhancing disaster prevention in urban and rural areas. In the central mountain conservation area, ‘areas of mountain slope where major disasters or hazards have occurred in recent years will be designated as priority restoration areas. This is a useful source for considering hazard risk management in relation to strategic policies for economic and spatial development at the national briefing level.

Many cities, particularly in the UK and USA, have produced urban design guidance. Web site portals for accessing these and various national guidance include the UK-based RUDI – Resources for Urban Design Information <http://www.rudi.net> and US-based Urban Design – Official Website <http://www.urbandesign.org> and Web Urban Design – Urban Design Portal <http://www.weburbandesign.org> 9 Department of Urban and Housing Development, Executive Yuan Republic of China (2010) Strategic Plan for National Spatial Development, Council for Economic Planning and Development <http://www.cepd.gov.tw/encontent/m1.aspx?sNo=0013960> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5.3: Managing urban and city regional land development for resilience: basic principles 1. Promote development control measures aimed at managing development and curbing informal development and illicit construction in hazardous areas. These include areas that are prone to landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, surface faulting, floods and cyclones and include consideration of possible hazards with a high level of uncertainty; 2. Prevent informal development in hazardous areas: develop measures to discourage and establishment of informal settlement in hazardous areas 3. Harmonize the requirements of hazard risk reduction with existing land-use regulations and procedures; ensure that appropriate international standards of risk management are incorporated within them. 4. City and city-region development plans should address hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation: appropriate spatial planning frameworks, including Master Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks and the use of the Disaster Risk Management Master Plan approach (DRMMP – see Box 5.7) if appropriate, should be drawn up that address the hazard risks and the need to adapt to climate change impacts in place and regularly reviewed and updated. 5. Plan to manage urban development within the carrying capacity of natural resources and the environment. 6. The city regional scale should be adopted as the spatial framework for planning for urban risk reduction and resilience (see Section 3.4). 7. Consider stand alone or associated environmental planning interventions at appropriate scales: carry out an institutional mapping of the different forms of land and environmental planning at the different spatial and administrative levels to determine appropriate levels of intervention for urban risk reduction; identify the need for coordination. 8. Use an urban design approach to ensure a compact and sustainable urban form.10 New settlements should be planned as sustainable, walkable transit-orientated compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, with the necessary investment in workspace, services, public and community facilities. Regeneration and upgrading of existing areas should follow the same principles, allowing for the necessary improvements in quality of life for residents and users. 9. Employ participatory action plans for local areas associated with proposed infrastructure investment (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors): Action plans should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach.

5.2

Obstacles to good planning in developing world cities Vested interests and informal land markets: In most societies land is equated with wealth and a principle means of its accumulation. There is considerable vested interest working for selfish reasons against planning for the common good. At the political level, economic development and growthorientated policies tend to over-ride wider environmental and social concerns. Business, notably powerful big business lobbies, resist the pressures of ‘over-regulation’ and public sector-led planning is included within the target area of de-regulation policies (though commercial developers prefer many aspects of the ‘level playing field’ approach that a working planning system offers). Local authority planning is seen as a hurdle to economic development and growth, and is widely resented. The planners, often sidelined and mostly under-resourced, can respond to their ineffectiveness by adopting an ever more top down and bureaucratically rigid approach. This only serves to further alienate land developers and owners and to encourage illegal development and/or corrupt practice. Although most countries have now undergone a process of political decentralization with devolution of powers to the municipal level, most local authorities are constrained in the resources they can draw upon. While the legislative powers to ensure good planning may exist, in

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

practice there is a lack of expertise and input at the local level both to draw up good plans and to ensure that these are implemented in practice. Many countries have complex land tenure arrangements with colonial or imported norms, in places sitting on top of but imperfectly meshed with indigenous, traditional patterns of land holding and distribution. Land registration can be an arduous and bureaucratic process, expensive in time and money and open to corruption. Whether formally tied to planning procedures or not, lack of formal title encourages development outside the formal planning framework. More generally, land administration is an ongoing challenge. Very often cities in developing countries do not have an accurate and up-to-date record of land holdings. Paper records are frequently not properly managed and digital cadastres have not been put in place. Although greatly facilitated by computer technology, setting up a Land Information System can be a lengthy and costly process, similar in scale to producing a citywide master plan (and sometimes much larger, though of course the two measures can share a common GIS and satellite imagery). Developed world cities such as New York City or Philadelphia have sophisticated city land inventories and countries like the UK have national land registries. However, developing world cities have hundreds of thousands and sometimes many millions of unregistered properties so the physical task of simply registering title can be enormous. As many agencies working in the field of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction have observed, insecurity of tenure and land disputes can place formidable hurdles in the way of speedy reconstruction and encourages takeovers by the more powerful of land previously settled by low income groups. Land tenure is going to vary in substantial detail and in practice from place to place. In terms of disaster reconstruction, the important thing is to train people to ask the right questions to establish the way tend tenure was actually operating just prior to the disaster that may require movement of people from their existing pre-disaster locations. The role and status of tenants will also need to be taken into account. The legal government system of land title transfer and local practice is often not the same thing. Informal land markets in which illegally sub-divided land is bought and sold are widespread. Along with squatting on marginal and often environmentally-precarious land, informal land markets provide an entry point for the poor for obtaining housing in urban and peri-urban areas. Understanding this process is key to producing policies and projects that reduce the vulnerability of the urban poor to hazards and make planning work for the common good of the citizen. Entry into the formal housing market is barred to many low-income residents of developing world cities. Rents are too high and there is no access to mortgages for people living on very low and/or irregular incomes. This simple fact drives the occupation and development of hazardous land by the poor. A good analysis of local urban tenure and land market issues and recognition of their fundamental importance by all parties is an essential element of any briefing process at national and city levels. Lack of understanding and taking full account of these factors will seriously undermine any urban planning proposals that form part of the urban infrastructure investment. Social inequality is reflected in entrenched spatial inequality: As cities grow, the occupation of land reflects the economic power of different groups to command its purchase. The better off take the land that has the most amenity value and least risk of hazard. This includes areas that have a better microclimate and landscape character, free of any flood risk, upwind of any noxious industrial activities, well-located in terms of proximity to the centre or well connected to transport and other infrastructure. Conversely, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lower-income categories often live in areas with increasing risk levels, where housing and land prices are lower â&#x20AC;ŚSince poor inhabitants are less able to invest locally, these areas will also have lower amenities than safer areas.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;11 This spatial structuring of the city is reflected in the investment in infrastructure that has a long life cycle (100 years or more) and patterns of connecting routes and block forms that can persists for centuries which makes it very difficult to alter.

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5.4: Statute of the City: How Brazil addressed the issue of spatial inequality from the top down and bottom up In 2001 Brazil enacted the City Statute (Estatuto da Cidade). This implements provisions on urban policy found in the 1988 Constitution which, following many years of pressure by various civil society organizations, adopted a number of progressive principles such as municipal autonomy, democratic management of cities, the social right to housing, the right to regularization of informal settlements, the social function of urban property and the combating of urban property speculation. All cities with more than 20,000 people, located in designated metropolitan regions or urban conglomerations or subject to other special criteria (covering 40% of Brazil’s more than 9,000 municipalities) are required to produce a municipal master plan as the basic instrument for the organization of urban land. The City Statute is an innovative law promoting the social use of urban land that widened the fundamental legal and political role of municipalities in the formulation of guidelines for urban planning, as well as in conducting the process of urban development and management. ‘The Estatuto da Cidade aims to promote sustainable development and combat inequality through proper regulation and democratic management. To this end, it stipulates popular participation along with the state’s cooperation and partnership with private initiatives and civil society associations.’12 At the same time, the new political and legal context has proved fertile breeding ground for innovative experiences led by local governments that have been widely disseminated and employed by municipalities both in Brazil and across the world. The most well known example is participatory budgeting. This was first instituted by Porto Alegre in Southern Brazil and aims at opening up a proportion of the city’s budget to democratic decision making by a forum of community representatives. Another example provided for in the legislation are ZEIS, zones of special social interest, essentially officially recognized informal settlements that are eligible for policy and practical support by the urban authorities. Existing planning legislation and city plans should be reviewed for their adequacy in addressing issues of spatial inclusivity and long-term measures to overcome spatial inequality and potential associated vulnerability to hazards. The policy road map should set out recommendations for addressing these issues. These factors only serve to reinforce the need for criteria of ‘good ‘ and collaborative urban governance to be applied in the area of urban planning policy (see Box 5.5) Box 5.5: Principles of collaborative and good governance in urban planning 1. Statutory public consultation and planning appeal processes should exist and be transparent and effective: Statutory processes involving citizen and wider interest group participation in planning decision-making is mainstreamed should be developed and, where they exist, be transparent and effective. 2. Urban planning for risk reduction should employ platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation: create working range of networks, alliances and partnerships at both the sector and area levels. 3. Community participation in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading is essential: there should be involvement from early strategic planning stages and careful negotiation of the terms of any proposed resettlement or upgrading solution. 4. Forced eviction should be avoided at all costs; forced eviction in most cases is an infringement of basic human rights. All other alternatives should be considered first. 5. The needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community must be taken into account in planning for risk reduction: this includes tenants and all those without ownership rights, 6. Existing economic relationships, livelihoods and social capital should be respected in planning for risk reduction: they should figure highly in any resettlement plans, alongside a reasonable attempt to meet housing need

Budny D N (2007) Democracy and the City: Assessing Urban Policy in Brazil, Comparative Urban Studies Project and Brazil Institute, Woodrow International Center for Scholars, USAID. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Policies and Practice 5.3

Planning in informal settlements Flood-prone informal settlements: Slums on low-lying land subject to periodic or regular flooding can be found across the East Asian and Pacific region. This is land that, in the earlier phases of the development of a city has little value to higher income developers as there is still plenty of more easily developed land elsewhere. As the city grows, however, and land in the central area becomes ever more sought after and valuable, the pressures grow for the removal of such slums: a) For ‘aesthetic’ reasons with city managers and mayors concerned to present the best face of their city to the electorate and business investors, and b) More importantly rising land values make it economically viable to pay for flood management works and redevelop land occupies by slums on a commercial basis. A city may have in place policies for resettlement of slum dwellers in housing in appropriate locations with arrangements for subsidies to make it affordable. Cross-subsidization from developers’ contributions out of the value added from the commercial redevelopment of hazardous land case provide one such mechanism. In principle, under such conditions, all stand to gain (see Box 5.6 below and Jakarta case study, Box 5.10). In practice, however, the alternative housing provision is seldom available in sufficient volume to meet the need, Past experience shows it is unaffordable except to those at the top of the income ladder amongst the low income population (and/or to those who have land title that affords a reasonable level of financial compensation for loss of land and buildings in the redevelopment area). Box 5.6: Finance and partnership for resilient urban development 1. Institutional funding in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading for risk reduction can make the difference in easing negotiations to a mutually satisfactory conclusion: However, the policy implications of scaling up from individual cases needs to be taken into account. 2. Financial incentives should be employed to encourage good practice by private developers: commercial floor space bonuses can be awarded to developers that provide lowincome housing as part of their development (by increasing the allowable floor area ratio, for example). Fiscal incentives can be provided for the provision of green infrastructure that reduces risk. 3. Role of public-private-community partnerships and planning gain: Public-private partnerships can have a useful role if properly planned and managed but, whilst recognizing the realities of commercial development, local authorities have to stand firm in enforcing any progressive planning legislation that is already in place and making effective use of finance from developers contributions for community benefit. A ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and land-sharing type of approach is recommended whereby commercial developers, the municipal authorities and community representatives work together to plan and manage sensitive land transfer, housing design and relocation phasing details More often than not, any housing that is available is on cheaper land on the urban periphery some distance from where communities have established livelihoods. The type of housing provided has an impact. Living in small flats in multi-storey blocks is very different from living at ground or first floor on a bustling street in a mixed-use low-income neighborhood. Communities are often broken up and vital social capital is lost in the resettlement process. Resettlement, therefore, has to managed very carefully to be effective, with full reference to the community concerned from the outset Low-income communities are often acclimatized to lower level hazards like regular flooding and organize their lives accordingly. There is a trade off between living with the hazard and an affordable, central location. Floods and inadequate drainage, however, bring health risks and improvement will almost always be necessary. Any infrastructure works to reduce the flooding risk invariably implies some redevelopment of the land subject to flood and disruption of the existing population. Financial pressures, and the fact that river frontages are often commercially desirable locations, drive local authorities to look for high value returns from the redevelopment.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Upgrading behind the floodwall or levee or on-site resettlement in low-rise accommodation (or core housing or ‘sites and services’)13 is usually not economic. The best that might be achieved for those that wish or need to remain in the area is some element of low income multi-storey flat development cross subsidized party or wholly by commercial redevelopment of the remaining part of the site. This is sometimes referred to as a land sharing approach.14 Box 5.7: Tucunduba case study, Belem: a participatory approach to flood management in Brazil15 The Tucunduba River Project is an urban intervention focusing on local economic development and urban environmental management, prioritizing the recovery of riverside areas located on the periphery of Belém in northern Brazil. The project was recognized as a Good Practice by CAIXA (Federal Savings and Loan Bank) in 2001 and was among the 100 Best Practices in the 2002 Dubai Award. The riverbank intervention included the construction of harbors and a marketplace that were welcomed by residents as income-generating opportunities. The opening of a new route and roadpaving triggered a visible process of home improvement. The population has shown itself to be very resourceful in responding to the new participatory approach of the local government. The economic program involving local timber traders along the river was given a boost by the improved infrastructure. The project adopted an integrated and participatory approach to neighborhood development, fostering community self-esteem and faith in the future, thus providing an important catalyst for house improvement in the area. An important lesson in this participatory practice, perhaps, is to avoid creating hopes and expectative that might not be realised. The loss of nearby university-owned area for the new housing scheme meant that resettlement in the area of families living in at-risk palafitas (houses on stilts) was hampered. While a good model in terms of addressing important livelihood and community cohesion issues, the Tucunduba Project was developed in quite an isolated way by the local government and the residents of the area, and would have benefitted from partnerships with other agencies at different levels and a broader multi-stakeholder approach.

‘Sites and services’ is where a serviced plot of land is made available to a household for constructing their own dwelling on a ‘self-build’ or ‘self-develop’ basis. With core housing, s small serviced core living unit is provided around which a household can extend heir living space on an incremental basis. 14 See Angel, S and Boonyabancha (1988) Land sharing as an alternative to eviction, Third World Planning Review 10 (2). <http//:web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issues-tools/tools/Reg-of-land.html> 15 Mex Lock Centre (2005) Localizing the Habitat Agenda for Urban Poverty Reduction, DFID-funded research report, WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

The settlement at Tucunduba before (above) and after (below) the intervention Other hazardous low-income locations: Other locations where informal low-income settlement and particularly squatting typically takes place include over water bodies, swamps and wetlands, adjacent to major transport infrastructure (next to railways or under flyovers) on steep slopes and /or in protected natural areas. Each of these locations has associated hazards. However, they are different from flood-prone areas and less likely to be subject to the same pressures for redevelopment, in that they are not viewed as potential development locations. This may be because there are formal planning constraints to redevelopment or because the costs of building to meet safety standards laid down in the regulations may be prohibitive. The greatest disaster risk is associated with informal development on or below unstable slopes, which may be at risk of landslides, particularly in earthquake zones, or mudslides, in areas subject to heavy rainfall. While such development exists in central locations, these are most likely to have undergone risk mitigation measures since they have been around longest and are the most prominent in the urban landscape. It is more recent developments on the urban periphery on land that has not been properly surveyed for risk that are most vulnerable. Building out on stilts over or on reclaimed low lying wetlands carries associated health risks associated with poor sanitation and long-term risks from major river floods or rising sea levels. In these cases, however, it is less the risk to the resident population than the larger risk to the city from the loss of natural areas which provide natural flood protection and a reserve of biodiversity e.g. mangrove forests. Informal settlement along transport infrastructure obviously brings great risks of accident and as with slum development in other prominent locations, an aesthetic challenge to city managers. Sequential approach to planning for hazardous low income settlements: In all cases of precarious low-income settlements, planners should follow a sequential approach in descending order of desirability: ď&#x201A;§ In-situ upgrading where feasible with risk reduction and mitigation measures, including disaster preparedness, to ensure the basic health and safety of the resident population; regularization of land title and addressing the needs of those without title, including tenants. To carry out necessary infrastructure improvement works there will be disruption and some resettlement will almost certainly be necessary. ď&#x201A;§ Land pooling and land readjustment for on-site resettlement. ď&#x201A;§ Resettlement of the existing population on site in low rise or core housing or sites and services accommodation. Unlikely to be economic except where a municipality is well funded and in a peripheral/low value location.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 Resettlement nearby in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Partial or full on-site re-housing of the low-income population in high density, multi-storey flats through a land sharing approach. (Note that any multi-storey development can be high or midrise but needs to address local earthquake risks – see below).  Resettlement nearby in high density, multi-storey accommodation.  Remote resettlement in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Remote resettlement in high density, multi-storey accommodation Each of these actions offers an alternative to eviction, with or without compensation, still practiced by some city governments. In all cases, political realities have to be addressed. There may be political costs associated with favoring one group over another. An expensive solution tried in one location may set a precedent for similar settlements elsewhere in the city and cumulatively, this approach will quickly become unaffordable. Scaling up should always be kept in mind. Those that pay for their housing resent special treatment given to squatters. There is a widespread perception that giving new housing to slum dwellers will result in their selling or sub-letting it to leverage income and moving back to live in an informal settlement in a different location. In many cases, though almost certainly illegal under the re-housing agreement, this may happen because new housing is not affordable or does not fit with the intended beneficiary’s lifestyle. It is important, therefore, that sufficient attention is given to establishing housing need, levels of affordability and conditions of tenure that are manageable and enforceable. Box 5.8: Successful resettlement in Brasilia16 An example of a successful slum resettlement program was the relocation of slum dwellers from Brasilia to Samambaia, Brazil between the late 1980s and early 1990s. City authorities held extensive consultations with affected households and assisted relocation to serviced plots on new land, enabling families to build houses in line with their financial resources. Land titles were allocated to women to forestall the sale of the land by the men. A decade later, few families had sold their plots.17 ‘Relocation was also followed by the construction of a subway and provision of several government assisted settlement programs, which had the collective impact of ensuring easy access to the city centre and other employment nodes, enhancing the quality and life and creating a vibrant local economy.’ In both examples shown here the key factor in achieving success is close attention to affordability and economic and livelihood issues. Site and services plots on available land is a potential solution but it must be coupled with public transport infrastructure and other means of easy access to livelihood opportunities. Resettlement must thus be considered as part of a wider strategic spatial planning and housing policy approach for the city. Commercial centers along lines of high capacity public transport routes offer new economic opportunities for the urban poor as well as opening up access to land development opportunities to house them. Careful urban design should be employed to ensure a compact and sustainable urban form. New settlements must be planned as sustainable neighborhoods, with the necessary investment in public and community facilities such as schools, market places, health clinics, sports facilities, green space and police stations.

5.4

Re-settlement housing policies at the city level – opportunities and constraints Resettlement needs to be combined with appropriate city level, strategic low-income housing polices. City plans and housing policies often include recommended planning standards that cover low income housing design issues but these need to be critically reviewed as part of the city brief as they may be out of date in terms of confirming to current best practice, or otherwise not fully considered.

Arimah B C (2010) One of the many faces of urban poverty: explaining the prevalence of slums in African countries. City Monitoring Branch, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Nairobi, Kenya <www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2011-EDiA/papers/189-Arimah.pdf> 17 UN–HABITAT (2003) Guide to Monitoring Target 11: Improving the Lives of 100 million Slum Dwellers: Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, UN-HABITAT, Nairobi. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

City managers may be tempted to go for a high-rise solution to the providing affordable housing in cities because of the associated increases in density. In practice, re-housing of low-income informal settlement dwellers in higher density, medium rise flats is a more widespread and, if well planned and designed, often more successful policy. These blocks can be lift-accessed or walk-up. Walk-up flats accessed off staircase lobbies and lift wells or via balconies and corridors are the cheapest but limited to 4 or 5 storeys. Above 4-storeys the climb up the stairs becomes unacceptable for many residents. However, even the relatively simple, low cost, walk-up solutions have problems. In order to re-house as many with as possible without undue calls on public subsidy, flats are usually extremely small and families may be crammed into tiny accommodation accessing common toilet facilities and crowded access corridors or balconies. Conditions in informal settlements may be equally or sometimes more crowded with unacceptably low standard sanitation arrangements. However, adults, the elderly and children have easy access to streets and lanes where vehicular access is limited for business activities, socializing and recreation. In urban design terms, there is no automatic correlation between the number of storeys and residential density and quite high densities can be achieved with medium rise solutions. Typically, high-rise implies higher densities but other factors need to be taken into account. Higher buildings may need to be more spaced out to allow for natural light penetration, air movement (a planning requirement in Hong Kong and other tropical and sub tropical cities) or space for car parking, if this is a requirement. The knock on effect on demand for public and community services and infrastructure and other local circumstances needs to be taken into account. Large concentrations of low-income households in single massive, single use housing estates will always create social problems with the ensuing concentrations of deprivation and crime. Smaller estates or preferably mixed-income and mixed-use developments can avoid ‘ghettos’ and facilitate better livelihood opportunities. There are many economic activities and low-income informal neighborhoods. While some of these may not be environmentally acceptable, most simply add vitality and livelihood possibilities to the area. Any new development should include provision for these. Intermediate higher medium rise (6-15 storey) solutions are possible where the construction costs may be more favorable than high-rise and where there advantages in terms of meeting local urban design requirements, better microclimatic conditions and costs of meeting local earthquake risk reduction measures is more affordable.18 What is certain is that all lift-based solutions work better where all the residents are not poor and in cities which have the resources to manage them properly. High-rise living can offer attractions to residents such as the view, breezes and the privacy.19 On the other hand high-rise residents may be concerned about lift travel times, maintenance and breakdown, crime and safety of children. Phobia of heights can be a problem. The least popular locations tend to be at the highest and lowest levels.20 The lower levels lack the benefits of the upper floors, with lack of breezes and privacy and mosquito problem, rubbish smells, blocked views all being cited as disadvantages. East Asia has the two most prominent examples of successful high-rise, low income housing policies, Singapore and Hong Kong. These are both island city states where population pressure combined with a shortage of land have encouraged the cities to build upwards. Box 5.9: High rise housing in Singapore21 ‘Singapore, with the vast majority of its population living in high-rise public housing, provides a perspective where large high-rise public housing estate development has been consistently favorably rated by the residents. Though developed on a needs basis to solve a massive housing problem that was considered by many to be one of the worst examples of housing congestion and slums in the world,22 the ongoing policy has been towards continual upgrading and improvement to transform the high-rise into good places for people to live. With the passage of time, driven by an economic logic of

The height-to-depth profile of the building as has implications for the degree of vulnerability to earthquakes of different types – see Chapter 7 [?] 19 Yuen, B (2005) Romancing the high-rise in Singapore, Cities, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 3–13 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Wong and Yeh, (1985) WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

space and density of about 6,000 persons per sq km, public housing has extended skywards to more than 25-stories, as it improved the condition and stock of housing. The current tallest public housing in Singapore is 30-storey, with plans to construct more high-rise housing (40–50-storey) in both the public and private sectors as the population continues to grow within the limited land space.’ Singapore has very high average income levels and many decades of experience to draw upon, the country has developed an effective and efficient housing management system. Housing supply is effectively nationalized and, as most of the population live in public housing, no stigma is attached to it. Most residents have a 99-year lease and are effectively owners, with related buoyant property prices. In Hong Kong, the government provides public housing through flats with subsidized rents and through the low cost Home Ownership Scheme. These are built and administered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society. Although nearly half of Hong Kong population lives in public housing, much of it high rise, it has not always proved successful.23 The tendency now in both locations is towards higher (40 to 50-storey) solutions but clearly the success of this approach depends both on the efficiency of housing management and affordability and cost effectiveness of the lift technology and other building infrastructure requirements. In cities at risk from earthquakes, designing in safety measures of is essential both in terms of the structural design and emergency escape measures (which in any case fire risk will require). Earthquake resistance will add to the cost. (Compared with office buildings, apartment buildings out of planning necessity have shallow floor plates and additional strengthening will be necessary to counter their slender profile). Before rushing to emulate the Singapore and Hong Kong precedents, therefore, governments must consider the particularities of their own circumstances in terms of disaster risk, housing cost affordability and housing management capacity. High density, multi-storey re-housing solutions may, of necessity, need to be considered as part of urban upgrading projects in a resilient urban infrastructure investment program. However, the overconcentration of low-income populations in huge, ill-located ‘sink’ housing estates that can so easily become unmanageable ghettos or ‘vertical slums’ wrought with social problems should be avoided at all costs. Smaller scale and mixed-income, mixed-use developments are to be preferred. Due consideration must be given at the city (and national) briefing stage to the housing planning, design, management and affordability issues and there should be no hasty assumption either that existing housing polices are adequate, or alternatively that those imported from elsewhere will provide an easy answer to local circumstances. Box 5.10: Flood management and resettlement policy issues in Jakarta24 Flooding in Jakarta (city population about 10 million, metropolitan population more than 20 million) has been a chronic problem for the city. The floods are caused by both river overflow and high tide seawater inflows. The worst flooding in 2007 affected 60% of the city area. The problems are heightened by the likely rise in sea level due to climate change.

Case study example. Case study notes courtesy of Budhi Mulyawan. Sources: Berita Indonesia, 2009, ‘Mendobrak Jalan, Membangun Kendala’ (To batter down road and building obstacle), 6 September 2009. www.beritaindonesia.co.id/metropolitan/mendobrak-jalan-membangun-kendala Koran Jakarta, 2010. ‘Bantaran Kali Bebas dari Kekumuhan’ (River bank free from slums), 21 January 2010, http://www.koran-jakarta.com/berita-detail.php?id=43055 Kristanti, A. 2011. ‘Hujan, Banjir di Muara Baru Makin Tinggi’ (Rain, Flood in Muara Baru is higher), 21 January 2011 Tempo Interactif, Jakarta. http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/jakarta/2011/01/21/brk,20110121307958,id.html Priliawito, E. and Maryadie. 2011, ‘Atasi Banjir, Laut Jakarta Dibendung’ (Overcoming floods, Dam built along Jakarta coast), 5 February 2011. http://us.fokus.vivanews.com/news/read/202976-atasi-banjir--laut-jakartadibendung Mirah Sakethi Team. 2010. ‘Mengapa Jakarta Banjir?’ (Why Jakarta flooded), Jakarta: PT Mirah Sakethi. Sawarendro, 2010. ‘Sistem Polder & Tanggul Laut – Penanganan banjir secara madani di Jakarta’ (Polder system and sea dam – Community based floods mitigation in Jakarta), Jakarta: Indonesian Land Reclamation & Water Management Institute 24

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Flooding due to seawater affects large areas of North Jakarta. Groundwater extraction and uncontrolled high-rise development have caused continuous land subsidence and the reduction of surface water absorption through development has compounded the problem. Garbage clogging the river and uncontrolled informal and slums development along the river are cited as contributing to regular flooding. Currently 40% of Jakarta area is below sea or river level rising to 50% over the next 10 or 20 years. Ambitious projects such as building a ‘polder’ system similar to that used to protect cities in the Netherlands have been mooted. The provincial government aims to cooperate with the Government of Indonesia and surrounding local authorities in its city region to address flood prevention. Upstream dams play an essential role in flooding prevention and impermeable surfacing associated with urbanization in the metropolitan region is exacerbating the flood problems. The major flood in 2007 has prompted the provincial government of Jakarta to set out a special plan for flooding mitigation to improve the infrastructure and address community preparedness and participation. An early warning system was developed in 2010. The program was started with $24m funding from World Bank in late 2009. Aiming to reduce flooding by 40% by this year the infrastructure program includes: • Development of Eastern and Western flood canals. Started in 2003, the Eastern flood canal was completed in 2010. The Western flood canal, built by the Dutch in 1920, underwent dredging and improvement in 2006. • Dredging of rivers and riverbank improvements, a major sea wall development along the north coast, sewage regeneration and measures to pump standing water to the sea. • A further 35% reduction by 2016 achieved by building a tunnel connecting Western and Eastern flood canals. It is estimated that 70,000 housing units are required to relocate the 350,000 people living along the riverbank. Tens of thousands of informal dwellings in the form of housing on stilts built over the rivers breach local planning regulations. However, the Jakarta government is currently only able to provide 2,000 housing units per year under its own housing program. The government provides rental flats for low-income households and ownership flats for lower middle-income families (costing about $1213,000 per unit of 36 sq m). For many of the slums inhabitants who live on government land, re-housing is considered too expensive and impacts negatively on their informal livelihood activities. Giving them financial compensation as in the case of relocation in the Eastern flood canal project is cited as a better solution. There is a call for government to assist the slum dwellers in their economic activities during the relocation process. Under a presidential mass house-building initiative, Jakarta is working in partnership with 28 private developers through the Real Estate Indonesia Association in Jakarta. They aim to deliver up to 20,000 high-rise units in 250 blocks over a period of a few years. However, a recent government planning decree limits the building height to a maximum of 12 floors on average (where previously18 storeys was possible). Developers rely on cross subsidizing low income units with middle income apartments and the loss of additional floor space increases the unit cost to $21,000. As a result, the developers are shifting the target market towards the middle-income market. The provincial government may fall back on planning legislation that requires commercial developers to make a contribution of 20% of developable land available for low income housing. This rule has hitherto been circumvented by developers paying money in lieu into a central fund used to provide alternative low cost accommodation in cheaper, more remote locations. The lessons from Jakarta and other cities facing similar problems are that:  Uncontrolled and unmanaged development has prompted consideration of large-scale structural measures. This highlights the importance of addressing re-housing, urban planning and community-orientated preventive measures at an early stage and planning to manage urban development within the carrying capacity of water resource and natural environment.  Consideration of affordability, livelihood and social concerns of existing low-income residents of informal areas is crucial. Public-private partnerships can have a useful role if properly planned and managed but, whilst recognizing the realities of commercial development, local authorities have to stand firm in enforcing any progressive planning legislation that is already in place.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 As well as enforcing sanctions, municipalities should also give consideration to financial incentives to encourage good practice by private developers. For example commercial floor space bonuses can be awarded to developers that provide low-income housing as part of their development (by increasing the allowable floor area ratio). Fiscal incentives can be provided for the provision of green infrastructure that reduces hazard risk

5.5

Social facilities: importance of social and cultural capital ‘The way that a nation copes with a disaster copes with disaster is a measure of its soul. In the hardest of times one can tell everything about a society and how it cares for its most vulnerable and what it does to ease its own burden…..The black water washed away entire towns, ports and factories but people’s hearts remain beating stronger and more compassionately than ever. This is the foundation that Japan’s future rests on.’25 Social capital is one of the most difficult things to define and sociologists’ attempts rarely if ever capture the scope and significance of the intangible elements that make it up. The ‘glue that holds a social group together’ is a commonplace metaphor. The importance of family and community bonds, shared cultural values and a sense of common identity can hardly be over-estimated. Local cultural assets are seldom given the attention they deserve in disaster risk planning and in post-disaster reconstruction. The urgent drive to restore vital infrastructure and re-house victims as cost-effectively as possible can sideline other more intangible concerns, increasing vulnerability and undermining future resilience. In divided societies, adversity often brings people together. However, it can equally serve to further divide them. A key challenge in building resilience is how to ensure that a common sense of humanity, trust and ethical concern over-rides any tendency by one group to blame and victimize another, or towards exclusivity in a competitive struggle for scarce resources. One way certainly is to involve civil society most fully in planning for disaster risk reduction (mitigation and preparedness). Groups and organizations representing different religious, ethnic, minority and community interests should come together for the purpose of building trust and a common culture of resilience. Disaster planning and post-disaster recovery both offer opportunities for building forums and other forms of stakeholder involvement. Clearly this better done before any hazardous event, as disasters leave surviving communities weakened, fragmented and demoralized. Establishing a place in which cross-community representatives can come together to discuss issues relating to reducing common vulnerability in a managed setting could be a start. Such a place might also be designed as a refuge in case of disaster as it would already have established itself as a secure haven, where people from different backgrounds can congregate without fear for their life or safety. Box 5.11: Planning tools for reinforcing social capital and resilience  Participation in risk management and resilience building planning processes  Public and community refuges (open, high elevation public spaces, robust multi storey buildings) located and spaced to give access within the advance warning period of any impending hazard; doubling as centers for cross-community dialogue  Urban design and urban conservation: ensuring that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in the physical planning process

Box 5.12: Good practiced in resettlement policy and housing for the urban poor

‘One month after the tsunami’ slideshow report by photographer Jake Price on the volunteer effort and recovery in Natori, Japan one of the areas most affected by the disaster <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures13014430>.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

1. Protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements: develop programs aimed at protecting or relocating informal settlements in hazardous areas 2. Housing policies should aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations: effort should be made to design and implement urban-poor friendly housing policies before large-scale resettlement is undertaken as a key prerequisite. 3. Adopt an integrated, multi-sector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups: fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading. Ensure that housing policies, including any resettlement of the urban poor, are harmonized with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development 4. Adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous low income settlements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; resettlement should always be a policy of last resort: In all cases of precarious low-income settlements, planners should follow a sequential approach, giving specific recognition to the housing rights of tenants, 5. Use urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement 6. Urban design and urban conservation measures should be addressed to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction.

5.6

Planning for disaster preparedness and managing wider vulnerabilities Low-income slums and informal settlements must figure highly in any risk and poverty focused planning for urban infrastructure investment. However, city plans must also address a wider set of concerns and recognize the risks that face the wider population, some sections of whom are particularly vulnerable, such as children, the infirm and elderly. In terms of settlement type, wealthier sections of the population are in a better position to ensure that the dwellings they inhabit are designed to withstand known hazards. However, the harrowing images of whole towns swept away by the tsunami in Eastern Japan demonstrate how one of the wealthiest and best prepared nations in the world was unprepared for a disaster of such speed, magnitude and impact. The critical difference here is between planning for hazards of known likelihood and taking measures, which may prove unaffordable, to mitigate the risk of catastrophes of rare and unpredictable occurrence. Many coastal locations in the Asia Pacific region are vulnerable to tsunamis. These are relatively rare and variable in their impact so are difficult to plan for. Buildings of lighter construction designed to hold up in earthquakes may be easily destroyed by the huge lateral thrust of a tsunami. Buildings of heavier construction and/or designed to facilitate the wave to pass through will hold up better. Multi level buildings allowing refuge on upper floors and/or with easy access to areas of roof that can be used for refuge are practical approaches (although there are limits to the height of any tsunami wave that can be designed for an alternative means of escape should always be considered â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see Box 5.10)

5.7

Planning for climate change adaptation Planning for urban resilience should address climate change issues as a matter of course and any plans that address disaster risk reduction and management will involve some assessment of climate change risk. However, as part of ongoing sustainability planning, cities may also benefit from the development of specific climate change adaptation strategies (see Box 5.13). Box 5.13: Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London The London Plan is the citywide plan produced by the Greater London Authority (GLA) led by the Mayor of London. Each of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 33 local authorities has its own Local Development Framework, a portfolio of planning policies for managing local development that can be updated and added to, on an as needs basis. These policies are drawn up and implemented within the strategic framework of

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

the London Plan. As a part of the updating of the London Plan, the Mayor has commissioned a Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London.26 The strategy prioritizes climate risks, identifies gaps in the current policies, lists 34 key actions to reduce or manage the risks and identifies those best placed to deliver these actions through working in partnership with the GLA. Proposed reviews of the strategy aim to develop an ever more detailed plan of actions. Preparing for climate changes is seen as complementary to the London Plan’s strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. London was rated the ninth most vulnerable on a risk register of natural hazards for the worlds’ fifty megacities. All of London’s natural hazards are weather-related. ‘London is already feeling the effects of climate change. It is particularly vulnerable to flooding, subsidence, overheating and to water supply shortfalls. Climate change will increase the probability and severity of these events through rising sea levels, heavier winter rainfall, higher tidal surges, hotter summers and less summer rainfall. The exceptionally high concentration of people and assets at risk means that any extreme event will have major consequences.’27 Without proper management of the increasing risks from floods, droughts and high temperatures these hazards will affect the prosperity and the quality of life for the whole population but particularly the most vulnerable (the very young and old, those on low income and inadequate insurance cover, with poor health or disability, living alone or not having a support network). The three area of hazard risk are assessed under the following headings: • Baseline context • Probability • Consequence • Exposure and vulnerability The strategic policy response to hazard risk adopts the following sequence: • • • •

Prevent Prepare Respond Recover

Overheating is regarded as a high and increasing risk. There has been a 2oC rise in average summer temperatures in the 30 years since 1976. The heat island effect means that central London can be 5oC or more warmer than the suburbs. By 2100, temperatures of the hottest days could be up to 10oC higher, exacerbating heat waves and the ‘rush to air conditioning’.28. London is vulnerable to tidal flooding (low probability but possible high consequences), river flooding (medium probability) and surface water flooding from heavy rainfall (most probable and least understood). Sewer and groundwater flooding is also possible, as is a combination of flood risks. The risk of flood generally is high and increasing ‘as sea levels rise, tidal surges increase in height and winter rainfall increases in volume and intensity.’ The strategy suggests London should be resilient to all but the most extreme floods and should have robust emergency plans to respond to, and recover quickly from, flooding. There is a low but increasing probability of prolonged drought as current balance is only met by withdrawing more water from the environment than the environment can sustain as summer rainfall and groundwater recharge reduces and evaporation and public water demand increases. Hence the need to reduce and manage water demand and keep it in balance with supply for which a London Water Strategy is proposed. In its ‘Roadmap to Resilience’ the strategy also sets actions for managing the impacts on the following cross cutting issues:

Mayor of London (2010) Draft Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for London. Public Consultation Draft. February 2010. Greater London Authority. 27 <http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/climate/> 28 ‘Mechanical cooling is a more energy-inefficient and carbon-intensive process than heating. In the future, the potential increase in summer energy demand for air conditioning may offset, or even exceed the estimated 12-19 per cent energy use savings that could be expected from the predicted warmer winters.’ Mayor of London (2010) p115 WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

• • • •

Health Environment Economy Infrastructure

Tools, methods, checklists and information sources 5.8

Spatial planning tools Master plans: A master plan does not have to be a physical plan and so the term carries some ambiguity. In urban planning, a master plan implies a physical plan of some kind. It is used at the citywide scale,29 usually as applied within areas defined as municipalities, sometimes (more rarely) at the metropolitan planning scale, where these are defined in the legislation. Master plans are also produced by urban designers as briefing documents for architects and engineers at the site level. A municipal master plan will take the form of a statutory document or series of documents that includes physical plans as well as written policies associated with them. In this context, the master plan can mean both the legal document and the key land use zoning plan within it. Many cities in the East Asia and Pacific Region will have physical master plans and, as the statutory planning document, reference should be made to these even though they rapidly become out of date. In some places, their provisions regarding land use, for example, may be rigidly enforced. Elsewhere, they are likely to have been overtaken by uncontrolled development. In most cases, they will have been drawn up without sufficient attention to risk factors, but their established status in the legislation means that they cannot be ignored. Despite their continued use, city-level physical master plans have been subject to considerable criticism over the years. They are typically conceived as documents to guide large scale municipal investment, at a time hen a far greater proportion of investment is private sector-led.30 Many contain rigidly zoned single land use area that do not allow for flexible mixed use of land as occurs naturally in cities. They are seen as end goal blueprint plans within a given time frame and do not allow for flexibility in their implementation or adaptation to changing circumstances. They are therefore often not effective as tools for pursuing ‘robust decision making’ (see Section….). Structure or strategic concept plan: Master plans and local development planning documents sometimes include a diagram or diagrams referred which sets out the strategic objectives and spatial development concept. This type of ‘structure’ or city level urban design ‘concept’ plan is helpful in visualizing the broad shape of future development (or exploring different scenarios for this) indicating for example, the location of new transport infrastructure that will have the most influence of the future physical form of the city. It is at the early stages of considering strategic development options for a city that an integrated cityregional approach that focuses on risk reduction can have the most impact. A structure or concept plan can be a useful tool for task managers and their counterparts to review strategic risk reduction options with key stakeholders. Spatial Development Framework as a tool for robust decision-making: Spatial Development Framework is a term in increasing contemporary use by planners as an alternative to physical master plan. A spatial development framework sits between a strategic structure or concept plan and a detailed land use plan. A spatial development framework, as opposed to a fixed physical master plan, allows for flexibility, adaptation and contingency in the planning process. It accepts that many factors influence the implementation of planning policies in practice and that physical plans need continuous updating to reflect the reality of development on the ground.

‘Spatial master plans’ are also produced at the site level setting out in outline proposals for buildings, open spaces, movement strategies and land use for large development sites in three dimensions matched to a delivery strategy and prior to architectural design. See Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, London: ODPM 30

A good example in the Master Plan for Delhi which was drawn up on the assumption that most development in the city would be carried out by the Delhi Development Authority. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Assumptions made about staged development of the major infrastructure, particularly railway and major road infrastructure, may need to be amended in the light of actual public and private sector investment decisions and unforeseen and uncertain change in natural hazard risk factors. This will also have a key influence on the phasing of development. This can be done in a way that maintains the integrity of the overall planning concept. Spatial development frameworks can be effective planning tools for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;robust decision makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in mainstreaming urban resilience. They should therefore be advocated as good practice in any national or city level brief setting a recommended policy road map for the longer term development of urban planning for risk reduction and resilience. One of main incentives is that wasteful investment in, and call on scarce city resources for management of, expensive structural solutions that can be rendered ineffective by unforeseen environmental factors can be avoided.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5.14: Spatial development framework aims to reduce risk for a city in Nigeria31

The revised Master Plan for Kaduna in Northern Nigeria currently at the draft stage. The climate change impacts for this part of Western Africa with its distinct wet and dry seasons remain highly uncertain. Flood is a perennial risk but declining rainfall with implications for agriculture, drought and creeping desertification from the north are also long-term threats. Additionally, the intensification of storms over limited areas brings flash floods and high winds. The flexibility to adapt to circumstances needs to be an essential element of any long-term plan and robust decision-making approach to risk reduction in spatial planning. The draft Master Plan includes a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;spatial development frameworkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the flexible expansion of the city. The fundamental aim of the Kaduna Spatial Development Framework is to guide development along corridors of new planned infrastructure, to contain the extensive informal development that is

Max Lock Consultancy Nigeria (2010) Kaduna Master Plan Draft Final Report. (unpublished)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

taking over the periphery of the city, sometimes in high-risk locations, and to create a sustainable and efficient compact urban form. The framework allows for the sequence and precise location of development areas to be decided according to prevailing conditions while retaining the overall integrity of the planning concept. Investment in infrastructure is limited to what is needed to meet demands in the short term and to maintain a compact city form. Money is not wasted on capacity that is not needed or infrastructure that may be subject to unknown hazards at a later date. The plan for the city is based on a land use survey of the entire urbanized area and a sample household survey within that area. This data together with satellite imagery, topographical and hazard related data is stored in linked databases that will an operational Geo Data Infrastructure (GDI) for the future urban management of the city and its catchment area. The Spatial Development Framework evolved out of thoroughgoing analysis of the natural assets of the Kaduna City Region and understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the River Kaduna, which is subject to major periodic flooding (with the last major flood in 2002). One of the aims of the plan is to prevent development in the flood plain and to zone riverside areas for agricultural and amenity use. The multiple tributaries and streams that serve as natural drainage channels for the city and its surroundings are zoned as corridors for similar use creating a green space network within which the phased expansion of the city can occur according to development pressures and investment capacity as it changes over time.

5.9

Producing an evidence-based physical plan – from survey to Geo-Data Infrastructure Any physical plan, from a resettlement layout at the site level, through planned corridors to facilitate new transport infrastructure or flood defense measures, to a risk-focused, statutory land use/development plan for a city involves essentially the same basic process. This follows the classic formula: ‘survey-analysis-plan’.32 In the age of digital technology, however, planners can draw on a wide range of computerized tools that facilitate the speed and effectiveness of urban planning and potentially greatly extend its capacity for urban management (see Box 5.15). The cost of producing a physical plan can range from just a few thousands of dollars for an outline development brief for a small site, through tens of thousands for a full feasibility study or master plan for a larger development through to many hundreds of thousands of dollars for a master plan for a whole city or city region.

Attributed, though probably incorrectly, to Sir Patrick Geddes – see Welter, V (2002) Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5.15: Fifteen steps to producing and implementing a physical plan 1. Define the study area using existing maps or satellite imagery. 2. Collect, collate and review any available information on the study area: This includes maps (paper or preferably digital), satellite images or aerial photographs, census data, reports, cadastral/land ownership information, statutory planning policies. 3. Set up a consultation framework: A framework for ongoing consultations with key stakeholders should be set up and preliminary discussions arranged to establish good lines of communication and build trust. At some stage, a multi-stakeholder partnership may be established for this purpose (see Chapter 3). 4. Carry out initial spatial analysis using satellite imagery: Low-resolution imagery is freely available from web sites and adequate for broad land use identification purposes, for example at the city region or citywide scale.33 This can be used to determine where the built-up areas, main lines of infrastructure, forests, water bodies and other natural areas are located and for drawing maps at 1:250,000 scale. Low-resolution topographical data can also be freely or cheaply downloaded.34 As topography is generally subject to little alteration over time, existing maps, though dated, may be used for the initial analysis. Similarly, any existing geological and soil type maps can be used for analysis of natural assets subject to environmental impact or risk analysis (see Chapter 8). High-resolution (less than 1m resolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; normally 50 or 60cm) satellite imagery is also often freely available online through tools such as Google Earth and this can be used both for small and large-scale spatial analysis, including detailed site planning.35 The date of such imagery can vary widely and, if out-of-date, more recent development may have changed the picture entirely. In this case new high-resolution imagery may need to be purchased at the outset. If reasonably up-to-date Google Earth imagery should be adequate, certainly for the initial analysis, although it cannot be used for the more detailed, geo-referenced work that is required at a later stage. 5. Delineate survey areas: From this initial analysis, survey areas are delineated. These are determined partly by the amount of ground the survey team can cover during the working day given the nature of the survey that may be necessary. Other criteria may be important for delineating such areas for data collection and planning purposes, e.g. contiguity with local government administrative or planning area boundaries, built form and landscape character, risk factors, etc. 6. Purchase high-resolution satellite imagery for detailed analysis and planning. If existing up-to-date data is available this may not be necessary but in developing countries the chances are that some purchase will be necessary. Further details of data types and costs are given in Chapter 8. Note that planning can be an extended process. Timing of purchase is critical as satellite imagery can quickly go out of date, particularly in rapidly urbanizing peri-urban areas. Note also that cheaper archived data may be available (costs about $15-$20 per sq km) where a supplier has been recently commissioned to supply it. Otherwise, new imagery will need to be commissioned at further cost ($25-$30 per sq km) and weather conditions are critical in the timing of this to avoid cloud cover or to pick up particular vegetation cover. If very accurate contour information is required this can add considerably to the cost (up to $150 per sq km). Note that existing remotely sensed image data may be available from a local authority or public utility or from private consultants who have carried out recent mapping, surveying or planning work. This data has a commercial value and may only be made available at a price. However, any purchase cost should be related to the date of the imagery and the cost of purchasing comparative archived data or newly commissioned imagery directly from a supplier.

e.g. the Landsat Program from NASA <http://www.landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/dat/where.html> See for example <http://www.globalmapper.com> 35 Associated tools such as Google Earth Pro can be purchased at low cost to enhance the sophistication of the analysis. 34

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

7. ‘Ground truthing’: interpretation of remotely sensed data can be open to question so critical features will need to be verified by on the ground inspection. ‘Ground control’ using sub-meter handheld GPS equipment for accurate ‘geo-referencing’ of the imagery (fixing the geographical location reference points) may be required. Newly available 50 cm resolution imagery available from Worldview is said to make this unnecessary but any savings on purchase/hire of GPS equipment and ground control surveys is likely to be offset by the additional expense of such imagery. 8. Surveys: a physical survey will be necessary to determine the existing land use and built form characteristics, infrastructure installations, building construction and condition. Sample household surveys may be necessary, along with other forms of stakeholder consultation and involvement. Transport surveys, including traffic counts, are likely to be required. Business surveys, audits of local public services and local government capacity, surveys of civil society organizations including women’s organizations, special needs, cultural, ethnic and religious groups may be necessary, depending on the nature of the plan. The Internet and Worldwide Web can be useful in facilitating such surveys. Where possible, existing data sources such as the census or national Demographic and Health surveys36 should be used making necessary adjustment for the date of the survey. 9. Geo Data Infrastructure (GDI) development: all spatial, land, social, demographic, economic and environmental data needs to be ‘cleaned’ from survey entries and entered in to a set of common, related, geo-referenced databases. A Geographical Information System (GIS) is central to this. However, a GIS is a working tool for planners to store and analyze spatial data. It is not normally designed to meet the everyday requirements of urban management by a range of technicians and officials working in different sectors of local government. The databases and mapping processes will need to be designed to be user friendly and meet the legacy requirements (see step 15 below). 10. Analysis: on the basis of the data collected, a series of analytical studies will be carried out to determine existing conditions and future planning needs over a range of time horizons. Environmental hazard risk analysis (including climate change impacts) should form a central element of this part of the study. Future land and economic development, population, traffic, housing and employment projections are all based on models with in-built assumptions and according to a range of scenarios. However, as detailed elsewhere in this guide, as part of ‘robust decision making’, planners are starting to look beyond the normal, safe’ range of scenarios to explore the risk implications of more unlikely scenarios. These are envisioned by different stakeholders as a consequence of the recognition of the uncertainties associated with many types of environmental hazard risk. 11. Initial options appraisal and feasibility analysis: Strategic planning proposals are produced and discussed with key stakeholders. Alternative plans may be produced based on different assumptions and scenarios. A cost benefit analysis of the different options is carried out along with a financial feasibility analysis noting the likely funding sources and phasing implications. Risk and environmental, economic and social impact analyses will need to be carried out as part of the cost benefit analysis. Measures for phased implementation of proposals will need to be explored. 12. Draft proposals and consultation: A final draft set strategic proposals is discussed with communities, public officials and other stakeholders and plans are finalized subject to the feedback received. If the institutional framework for fully involving communities and other stakeholders in the planning process has been in place since the outset, their views should already have been taken into account or otherwise negotiated 13. Final reporting: Maps and plans will form part of a larger master plan or feasibility study report or set of reports (in both digital and printed format). This summarizes the survey outcomes and analysis and explains strategic proposals and action plans. Physical plans are related to a larger set of written urban design, development and management policies. The report may include other presentation and illustrative material such as diagrams, model guidelines and standards, phasing proposals, tables, sketches, orthographic drawings, explanatory texts, physical and digital models (including spreadsheet models), animations and multi-media presentations.

See: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program <<http://www.measuredhs.com>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

14. Action planning and implementation: With a limited site planning or infrastructure corridor planning exercise, the master plan should provide the basis on which architects and engineers can produce detailed design drawings for construction purposes. Any plan should give full consideration to the project life cycle management, that is to how any physical asset will be managed and maintained over its lifetime and replaced at the end of its useful life. More strategic, citywide plans may define action-planning areas and other areas of detailed study that need to take place in order to implement the strategic proposals. These local plans will be produced at a larger scale with community involvement and buy-in and provide a life cycle management plan and brief for detailed design work by engineers and architects. 15. GDI legacy handover, capacity building and institutional strengthening: It is important that all the data collected as part of the planning process is made available as an IT legacy to local government. This will help ensure that any plan is properly implemented and subject to monitoring, evaluation and updating over time. Any data can also be employed for further planning and local service delivery management. Training will be necessary to ensure that the GDI is regularly updated to ensure its effectiveness as a tool for urban management. Other forms of institutional strengthening may need to be carried out to ensure that any additions to the statutory planning framework are properly implemented and subject to frequent periodic review. One effective way of building capacity is to employ local authority technical staff in the planning process, ‘learning on the job’ under expert supervision. How this takes place should be agreed at the outset.

5.10 Physical planning for disaster risk management The previous section sets out a general approach to producing a physical plan at a range of scales as a resilience-focused general regulatory tool or simply as a preliminary step in an infrastructure project design intended to strengthen urban resilience. In this section we describe a specific risk reduction plan can be developed as an add-on to the existing regulatory framework. Two sources are drawn upon – the World Bank’s Resettlement Handbook and the Disaster Risk Management Master Plan Model of EMI – the Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative. While a risk reduction plan can be a stand-alone element it should be fully integrated within the wider set of spatial development policies for a city. Implementation is the critical challenge. Any such plan should be backed up with legislation and the means to enforce it. If such a plan does not already exist, either as a stand-alone or as an integral part of wider planning measures, this should be identified in the city brief with policy recommendations on how it should be addressed. The necessary resources and capabilities should be made available at the local government level and part of the investment funds should be set aside for the necessary capacity building. There should be buy in and mechanisms for determining the level of ‘socially acceptable risk’ from politicians, different sectors of government, communities, business and civil society interests and other stakeholders through a participatory process. Formulating a risk reduction plan involves:37    

Risk analysis and assessment Analysis of mitigation options Formulating the risk management strategy Formulating the risk reduction action plan.

Box 5.16: Outcomes of a risk reduction plan38 • • • • • •

37 38

The risk reduction plan agreed among authorities, communities, and relevant institutional and societal stakeholders The objectives and outcomes pursued The activities to be carried out and those in charge of them The implementation timeframe Cost and sources of financing A consensus-based vision of the future

World Bank Resettlement Planning Handbook, Chapter 2 Ibid.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Model of the risk reduction planning process39 The starting point of a risk-based planning approach is a risk analysis and assessment. This requires technical studies including mapping and modeling, best carried out with the use of GIS techniques 40 (see Chapter 8). It should include:      

Hazard identification and characterization Identification of exposed elements Vulnerability assessment Estimation of potential losses and determination of risk levels Definition and express indication of the levels of uncertainty Determination of acceptable risk

This exercise aims to address and analyze such issues as:41     

What is the current status of the natural hazard (or multi-hazards), its probability of occurrence and its likely evolution over time? What areas of the city and its surroundings are or may be affected? What specific populations, buildings, infrastructure and land-based assets. including economic assets and critical facilities, are exposed? What is the level of exposure and vulnerability in exposed areas? What are the expected consequences and estimate of losses (including the results of knock on or cascading events) if the event materializes with current or altered levels of exposure and risk?

This exercise is an essential part of the city brief. Its outcome is expected to be a defined set of riskbased (micro) zones across the city region or urban agglomeration with varying characteristics in terms of exposure and vulnerability to a range of possible hazardous consequences. This provides a basis upon which any spatial plan and any infrastructure project, whether specifically targeted at risk reduction or more general in character, can address the issues of risk and resilience.

Bendimerad, F (2009) State-of-the-Practice Report on Urban Disaster Risk Management, EMI Open-File Report, June 2009 [to be re-drawn with appropriate acknowledgements] 40 World Bank Resettlement Planning Handbook, Chapter 2 41 Ibid. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5.17: Disaster Risk Management Master Plan for Kathmandu42 EMI, The Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative, promotes the concept of the Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (DRMMP) as a tool for empowering local government and communities to mainstream risk reduction within local functions and services. The idea is to promote Disaster Risk Management as part of the day-to-day business of government and other local interests.43 In the Kathmandu Valley, the program partners (National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal [NSET), Kathmandu Metropolitan City [KMC], Pacific Disaster Center [PDC], EMI and others) have identified five elements for the joint scope of work for the next three years: 1. Strengthen DRM organization at KMC 2. Reduce risk through land use and urban development planning 3. Provide KMC with mechanisms for building code implementation and enforcement 4. Strengthen emergency response (pilot test in selected wards), and 5. Enhance information and communications technology for DRM. For each of these, there is a timeline, list of activities, responsible parties, and outcome indicators. There are linkages with the other activities, and with other related activities at the national level, other internationally-funded projects, and local scientific efforts. For instance, for No 1, Strengthen DRM organization at KMC, intended outputs and timeframe the activities include  Organize task group  Review existing legal and institutional arrangements for DRM at national, regional, and local levels  Develop proposed DRM organization and its agenda  Conduct training needs assessment as basis for internal DRM capacity building agenda  Develop guidelines for ward level disaster management committees and implement in selected wards  Identify responsible parties, and Inputs and linkages with related projects. Within the city brief, the range of risk reduction and mitigation options available can be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis using criteria developed in the risk analysis and in terms of their social and political feasibility. Options that are likely to be considered are structural measures including new protective elements or retrofitting of existing infrastructure and buildings, changes in land use and creation of buffer zones, recommended changes to building codes and planning and building control procedures, resettlement and training, capacity building and awareness raising. The short medium and long-term possibilities for funding can then be investigated. The financial, management, phasing and strategic spatial plans together make up key elements of a risk reduction strategy. An action plan or set of action plans can follow on setting out the measures that can be taken to implement the plan in the short term, once its recommendations are agreed. The Disaster Risk Management Master Plan approach can be adopted as an additional policy tool for hazard management at the city level and the city brief may identify it as a policy option. However, care should be taken to ensure that it is fully harmonized with existing statutory plans and sector-based policies and lack of co-ordination between different sets of plans at different levels is one of the major barriers to implementing urban resilience measures. The other, course, is the lack of implementing powers and capacity which may be longer term challenge. Economic imperatives All coastal locations are vulnerable to ocean-related hazards, be they geophysical, like tsunamis, or hydro-climatic in origin (tropical cyclones, storm surges). As previously noted, climate change is likely to exacerbate the dangers associated with these hazards. Nevertheless, coastal areas, and land on the margins on rivers and other water bodies that are prone to flooding, are settled for good economic reasons and resettlement away from potentially hazardous locations has to be based on sound

Mattingly, S (2006) Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (DRMMP) Model and Components, Asia Megacities Forum, 3 November 2006

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

economic reasoning. In any situation where a living can be made from the sea or other water body and major hazards are highly uncertain or rare, it would prove difficult to justify not putting the land to economic use.44 Of course, this does not mean that hazardous land needs to be permanently settled without the necessary risk mitigation measures in place. Any residential development around a port, for example, should be adequately protected. That said, a number of special cases immediately arise. Poor fishermen in tsunami-threatened areas may not be able to afford to live far from where they keep their boats.45 It is usually uneconomic to provide in-situ structural protection for this type of settlement. Some of the towns affected by the tsunami in Eastern Japan had sophisticated sea defenses in place but these were overwhelmed by the scale and speed of the wave. The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami brought region-wide devastation and need for reconstruction-related physical planning decisions on an unprecedented scale. It remains to be seen in the post disaster reconstruction whether it is possible to invest sufficiently to guard an existing settlement against this type of hazard, whether those locations will be permanently abandoned, or whether some kind of intermediate solution is possible making economic use of non-inhabited land. Incorporating disaster preparedness into the planning process As with any hazard, it may be possible to plan to minimize the loss of human life and injury whilst accepting a degree of loss and destruction of property and economic disruption associated with the impact of an infrequent and uncertain hazard. This suggests there may need to be greater emphasis on ‘non-structural’ disaster mitigation measures. In particular, the question of disaster preparedness comes to the fore (see Box 5.18). In any event, if there is any chance at all, however remote, of a major disaster, governments have a duty of care to their citizens to ensure the civil defense measures are in place to try to ensure their safety. This certainly applies in coastal areas where no substantive natural or man-made protection is offered to coastal settlements at risk from tsunamis, storm surges or tropical storms. Tsunami-prone areas need to have sufficient obvious fast escape routes to higher ground, whether by vehicle or on foot. In the case of the Tohoku tsunami, it was evident this was not always the case. Designated, sturdy, higher buildings within easy reach of populated areas that could serve as refuges following the issue of an early warning is another possible solution. (See Box 5.18 – The use of critical facilities as refuges are dealt with below). Box 5.18: Vertical evacuation structures in Padang, Sumatra46 Padang, the largest city in West Sumatra with a population of 1 million, has a very high ongoing risk of earthquakes and tsunamis. Current preparedness focuses on early warning systems, evacuation routes and drills and raising public awareness of the tsunami risk. These measures are necessary but not sufficient as an estimated 50,000 people will be unable to evacuate in the time. GeoHazards International, working with Alliance and local partners, has been exploring alternative tsunami evacuation strategies. Measures include ‘retrofitting existing structures to serve as tsunami evacuation structures, designing new evacuation structures with alternate meantime uses, investigating the seismic integrity of existing bridges, and researching the earthquake and tsunami parameters required for safe engineering design.’ A pilot vertical evacuation structure was designed to serve as a temporary refuge for evacuees during a tsunami, high enough to exceed the tsunami inundation level and strong and resilient enough to resist tsunami and earthquake forces. GHI’s concept of Tsunami Evacuation Raised Earth Parks (TEREPs) provide safe refuges that can be used for sports and amenity purposes strategically located throughout the city.

In the case of river flood plains, the flood is often a critical part of the economy bringing fertile sediment to land in agricultural production. 45

Pasupuleti, R S (2011) The Role of Culture in the Post Disaster Reconstruction Process: The Case of Tsunami Reconstruction in Tamil Nadu, Southern India, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Westminster 46 http://www.geohaz.org/news/latestnewsarchives/evaluating_infrastructure_padang_09_09.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAORrSBOKrs; < https://sites.google.com/site/stanfordesw/system/app/pages/search?q=padang&scope=search-site> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

The measures proposed in the case study from Chile are based on pragmatic ‘risk reduction’ and ‘risk sharing’ strategies rather than on ‘risk avoidance’ premised on land use planning that guides development away from hazardous areas altogether to safer locations. The question this approach raises for resilience is whether the proposed concentration of population in the central area of the city combined with mitigation measures reduces the risk from predicted events but increases the risk from an exceptional hazardous event. This is a pressing question raised by the recent tsunami in Japan. Box 5.19: Post-tsunami reconstruction master plan for risk reduction – good practice from Constitución, Chile47 The Government of Chile has used the recovery following the earthquake and tsunami of 2010 as an opportunity to incorporate risk assessment and mitigation measures in the future planning for coastal settlements. The Government’s Tsunami Protocol applies the following guidelines to affected areas: • Carry out integrated geological and tsunami risk study for every affected area. • Define zones and related land use restrictions to be implemented through planning policy and regulation. • Implement effective evacuation systems for each coastal settlement. • Ensure community preparedness and education to face possible hazards. • Implement tsunami-resistant design where it is needed. • Assign a special subsidy to assist in the application of new building codes for tsunami resistant housing. PRES is the master plan for the reconstruction and recovery of the town of Constitución integrating a practical range of structural and non-structural disaster risk mitigation and preparedness based on these policy guidelines.48 PRES is a sustainable ‘multipurpose recovery project’ based on involving the community with an integrated long term plan based on team working by different professional experts. The plan has three key objectives: 1. Incorporation of tsunami risk assessment and mitigation in the recovery and planning process. 2. Recovering natural (river and coastal) assets of the city giving character for urban development and enhancing the social identity of the community. 3. Enhancing tourism and forestry to promote the economic rehabilitation and growth of the community. The specific risk mitigation measures adopted by the master plan includes defining three land use zones based on assessment of risk: • Zone 1 allows uses like green and public space, sport and recreation, marine infrastructure and commercial and productive activities. Planting of coastal buffer zones along the coastline and the river edge is based on the modeling of worst-case tsunami scenario. This aims to control the 25-year river flood risk, substantially reduce the velocity and height of a tsunami wave with forest and buffer planting and provide green infrastructure as main public space of the city. • Zone 2 allows all the uses of Zone 1 and also housing with tsunami resistant construction. It excludes critical facilities like schools, hospitals, fire and police stations. Building codes require buildings in Zone 2 to have appropriate anti-tsunami strengthening measures for which a government subsidy will be made available. • Zone 3 includes areas without risk or associated limits on use. The plan proposes developing 3-storey housing to meet housing demand and achieve compact urban form in pursuit of sustainable urban growth. Preparedness and evacuation: The Master Plan includes a system of streets for evacuation perpendicular to the sea and river coast line both sides of the settlement allowing access a safe

Case study courtesy of Rocio Costa, Masters’ student in International Planning and Sustainable Development at the University of Westminster, London. 48 This plan has been developed in cooperation between Urban and Housing Ministry of Chile (MINVU), ELEMENTAL Studio, ARUP studio, ARAUCO company and the Municipality of Constitución. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

point at 35m high above sea level on the sea coast side and 10m above sea level on the river edge side. These corridors have been designed as pedestrian routes that end up in meeting points in safe areas and provide integrated public open space to the community in their daily life. The issue of earthquake resistance in buildings is dealt with in Chapter 7 but the enforcement of building regulations that ensure that new buildings are earthquake resistant, if not earthquake proof, has brought a huge reduction in the number of fatalities from earthquakes in the countries that have instituted them. A bigger issue is around existing buildings that have not been built to such standards. It is possible to retrofit existing buildings and this is also addressed in Chapter 7. Nevertheless, there are huge areas of existing cities in earthquake zones where buildings have not been properly engineered and built to an adequate standard of safety, either because such standards do not exist or because they are not properly enforced. Typically these are multi-storey buildings, from two storeys upwards – anything up to 8 or 10 storeys high in some places – of masonry or concrete frame construction. Their origins are various. Frequently they are consequence of incremental development. What started as a one-storey shack in illegally settled land ends up, over time, as a multi-storey tenement. Others may be developer-built apartment buildings on land with or without legal title, with or without planning permission but certainly without or with corrupt and negligent oversight of the design and construction by local authority officials or their agents. Jerry-built construction of this kind probably represents the greatest earthquake risk to human life and in overall terms the greatest direct economic cost in terms of building loss in the region indeed to the developing urban world as a whole. It is argued that the greatest injury and loss of life in the Haiti earthquake was suffered in the ‘middle class’ areas where so many residents were crushed by their buildings ‘pancaking’ on top of them. The lightweight shacks of slum dwellers though likely to collapse, pose a lesser risk (though their settlements are generally at far greater risk from associated hazards such as landslides). Box 5.20 illustrates the approach taken by Istanbul to this problem. This involves 1. Mapping exposure to hazard risk (depending on underlying geological conditions) 2. Identifying areas at risk and carry out sample condition surveys 3. Instituting retrofitting policies and carrying out retrofitting measures which building owners may be liable for 4. Designating remaining areas at risk for redevelopment This demonstrates the need to look at planning, urban regeneration and building engineering and control matters in an integrated way to be considered at the city briefing stage. Urban planning and critical or hazardous facilities A critical facility should not be located in a hazardous location if possible. Where they are or need to be, they need to be given further protection (see Box 5.14). A critical facility located in a floodplain, for example, should be afforded a higher level of protection so that it can continue to function and provide services after the flood.49 In preparing risk reduction plans any mapping should involve the definition and plotting of critical facilities that are vulnerable to natural hazards. Examples include:50 

Public safety and security installations: civil defense installations, communications and emergency management centers and shelters; fire stations, police stations, hospitals and other medical facilities



High occupancy buildings: auditoriums, theatres, stadiums and religious assembly buildings; educational facilities, hotels and office buildings; prisons

FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/nfipkeywords/critical_facility.shtm Department of Regional Development and Environment Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs Organization of American State s (1999) Primer on Natural Hazard Management in Integrated Regional Development Planning, With support from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance United States Agency for International Development , Washington, D.C. <http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/unit/oea66e/ch07.htm> 50

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific



Transport infrastructure and equipment: Airports, bridges, tunnels, flyovers, interchanges; railway tracks, tunnels, bridges, yards and depots; sea and river ports, locks, ferries, harbors, etc.



Media and communications: broadcasting, printing facilities



Utilities: telecommunications lines and facilities; other fuel storage, power stations and generators, transmission lines, substations; petrochemical installations (production, pipelines, storage, terminals); water supply and storage; waste water-collection, treatment, discharge; water containment (dams, reservoirs, levees, dikes)



Industrial plant: involved with use, manufacture, transfer, storage, disposal of corrosives, explosives, flammable or radioactive materials or toxins



Agricultural installations: food-storage, processing, transfer, Irrigation systems

Box 5.20: Retrofitting critical facilities in Istanbul51 ‘In 2006, Istanbul Provincial Administration started the Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project ((İstanbul Sismik Riskin Azaltılması ve Acil Durum Hazırlık Kapasitesinin Arttırılması Projes (ISMEP) with financing from the World Bank ($400 million credit) to strengthen local disaster response and emergency management capacity, to retrofit public facilities (hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and other important public facilities, such as bridges, ports, lifelines), and to protect cultural heritage buildings from disasters. Istanbul Municipality Infrastructure Project, another project financed by World Bank, also involves strengthening of overpasses, underpasses and viaducts. Both types of retrofitting projects are in progress.’

5.11 Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers, and project design and assessment checklist See Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below.

Gülkan, P, Disaster Risk Reduction In Turkey: Revisions For Land Use Planning, Development And Building Code Enforcement Since 1999, Disaster Management Research Center Middle East Technical University Ankara 06531, Turkey WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 5..: Risk assessment and disaster management 1. Risk factors in planning: Assess the extent to which hazard and vulnerability parameters are incorporated in planning processes at the different levels and meet appropriate international/subnational standards and benchmarks 2. Map and zone areas exposed to hazard risk: establish, through established procedures or a risk assessment mapping exercise, a zoning framework for the city and populated areas in its region. 3. Prioritize hazardous areas for interventions: employ risk mitigation and sharing measures and possible resettlement; 4. Prioritize disaster-affected areas for interventions: ensure that existing development control mechanisms are sufficiently flexible to allow a rapid response to impending hazards and to support rapid recovery following a disaster. Contingency plans for reconstruction should be prepared. 5. Community resilience action plans should be prepared for hazardous and disasteraffected local areas (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors) based on full community participation. These should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach. 6. Prioritize critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk: plan new facilities in safe locations and retrofit or relocate existing facilities if necessary. 7. Plan and construct escape routes and community refuges in hazardous areas: open, high elevation public spaces, robust multi storey building, located and spaced to give access within the advance warning period of any impending hazard; doubling, where possible, as centers for community use, disaster preparedness and cross-community dialogue Box 5..: Plan implementation 1. Set out priorities for capacity building and target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience: this affects the capabilities of agencies at all levels of government to understand, implement and enforce development riskfocused planning and land-use programs, plans and regulations. It includes assessing the role of line ministries and sector-based departments of urban hazard risk issues 2. Develop a training agenda and programs for government officials, technical staff and key actors; these should be aimed at improving awareness and understanding of natural hazard risks and enhance technical capacity in risk-sensitive land-use planning and urban development. Box 5â&#x20AC;Ś: Knowledge base for planning decision support 1. Create a geo-date infrastructure (GDI) as a legacy for urban management and ongoing plan review: Ensure planners have access to an up to date spatially referenced database of hazard risk related information that can be used to produce and update risk-based plans on a regular basis. 2. Carry out periodic surveys to collect up-to-date data on planning for hazard risk reduction: this includes analysis of up-to-date satellite imagery, use of natural resource and environmental maps. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ground truthingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, land use surveys and and household interview surveys. 3. Train planners in the use of up-to-date risk-based and climate change adaptation planning tools: including flow analysis, overlay mapping and scenario-based GIS.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 5.1: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers General good practice and policy recommendations:

National level/sub-national (state/regional/provincial) level

City/municipal level

Managing urban and city regional land development for risk reduction 1. Promote development control measures aimed at managing development and curbing informal development and illicit construction in hazardous areas. These include areas that are prone to landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, surface faulting, floods and cyclones and include consideration of possible hazards with a high level of uncertainty;

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban development legislation and policies require and adequately specify measures for managing development and curbing informal development in hazardous areas. Does this include consideration of possible hazards with a high level of uncertainty?

 Does the city practice development control measures aimed at managing development and curbing informal development and illicit construction in hazardous areas? Does this include consideration of possible hazards with a high level of uncertainty?

2. Prevent informal development in hazardous areas: develop measures to discourage and establishment of informal settlement in hazardous areas

 Do existing national/subnational planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies and guidance adequately specify measures for preventing informal development in hazardous areas?

 Does the city have measures in place to discourage and establishment of informal settlement in hazardous areas?

3. Harmonize the requirements of hazard risk reduction with existing land-use regulations and procedures; ensure that appropriate international standards of risk management are incorporated within them.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban development legislation and policies require and offer guidance on how hazard risk reduction can be harmonized with existing land-use regulations and procedures? Are appropriate international standards of risk management are incorporated within them?

 Are the requirements of hazard risk reduction harmonized with existing land-use regulations and procedures at the city level? Are appropriate international standards of risk management are incorporated within them?

4. City and city-region development plans should address hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation: appropriate spatial planning frameworks, including Master Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks and the use of the DRMMP approach if appropriate, should be drawn up that address the hazard risks and the need to adapt to climate change impacts in place and regularly reviewed and updated.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban development legislation and policies require and offer guidance on how city and cityregion development plans should address hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation?

 Do city planning policies and city-region development plans address hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Are appropriate spatial planning frameworks, (Master Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks or a Disaster Risk Mismanagement Master Plan) that address the hazard risks and the need to adapt to climate change impacts in place and regularly reviewed and updated? 

5. Plan to manage urban development within the carrying capacity of natural resources and the environment.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban development legislation and policies and guidance adequately specify measures for managing urban development within the carrying capacity of natural

 Do city development planning policies manage development within the carrying capacity of natural resources of the city region and the wider environment?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

resources and environment? 6. The city regional scale should be adopted as the spatial framework for planning for urban risk reduction and resilience: See Section 3…

Do existing national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation and policies facilitate and offer guidance on mechanisms to realize effective planning at the cityregion scale?

Is the city planning for risk reduction at the city region scale?

7. Consider stand alone or associated environmental planning interventions at appropriate scales: carry out an institutional mapping of the different forms of land and environmental planning at the different spatial and administrative levels to determine appropriate levels of intervention for urban risk reduction; identify the need for coordination.

Is existing environmental and urban planning coordinated at the national/sub-national levels? Do policies offer guidance on coordination between local government and higher-level political and environmental management levels?

Are city development plans coordinated with plans at higherlevel political and environmental management levels?

8. Use an urban design approach to ensure a compact 52 and sustainable urban form. New settlements should be planned as sustainable, walkable transit-orientated compact, mixeduse neighborhoods, with the necessary investment in workspace, services, public and community facilities. Regeneration and upgrading of existing areas should follow the same principles, allowing for the necessary improvements in quality of life for residents and users.

Do existing national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation and policies and guidance promote the use of an urban design approach ensure a compact and sustainable urban form in the planning of new settlements and the upgrading and regeneration of existing areas?

Do city planners employ an urban design approach ensure a compact and sustainable urban form in the planning of new settlements and the upgrading and regeneration of existing areas?

9. Employ participatory action plans for local areas associated with proposed infrastructure investment (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors): Action plans should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach.

Do city planners use participatory action plans for local areas associated with proposed infrastructure investment? Do such plans incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as in addressing hazard risk reduction?

Do provisions for statutory public consultation and planning appeal processes exist? Are there mechanisms in place for national/sub-national government monitoring and gaining public feedback on their transparency and effectiveness?

Does the city employ statutory public consultation and planning appeal processes? Are there mechanisms in place for monitoring and gaining public feedback on their transparency and effectiveness?

Collaborative and good governance 1. Statutory public consultation and planning appeal processes should exist and be transparent and effective: Statutory processes involving citizen and wider interest group participation in planning decision-making is mainstreamed should be developed and, where they exist, be transparent and

Many cities, particularly in the UK and USA, have produced urban design guidance. Web site portals for accessing these and various national/sub-nationalguidance include the UK-based RUDI – Resources for Urban Design Information <http://www.rudi.net> and US-based Urban Design – Official Website <http://www.urbandesign.org> and Web Urban Design – Urban Design Portal <http://www.weburbandesign.org> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

effective. 2. Urban planning for risk reduction should employ platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation: create working range of networks, alliances and partnerships at both the sector and area levels.

Do existing national/sub-national planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies require, support, promote or offer guidance on the use of platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation in planning for risk reduction?

Do city planners employ platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation and create working range of networks, alliances and partnerships at both the sector and area levels?

3. Community participation in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading is essential: there should be involvement from early strategic planning stages and careful negotiation of the terms of any proposed resettlement or upgrading solution.

Do existing national/sub-national planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies require, support, promote or offer guidance on community participation in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading?

Do city planning policies require and do city planners promote and practice community participation in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading?

4. Forced eviction should be avoided at all costs; forced eviction in most cases is an infringement of basic human rights. All other alternatives should be considered first.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies require, support, promote or offer guidance on alternatives to forced eviction?

Does the city practice forced eviction? Does it consider all other alternatives first as a matter of policy?

5. The needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community must be taken into account in planning for risk reduction: this includes tenants and all those without ownership rights,

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies require support, promote or offer guidance on meeting the needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community?

Do city planning and housing policies and guidance address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community including tenants and all those without ownership rights in planning for risk reduction?

6. Existing economic relationships, livelihoods and social capital should be respected in planning for risk reduction: they should figure highly in any resettlement plans, alongside a reasonable attempt to meet housing need

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning, housing and urban development legislation and policies require support, promote or offer guidance on addressing existing economic relationships, livelihoods and social capital in any resettlement plans?

Do city planning and housing policies address existing economic relationships, livelihoods and social capital in any resettlement plans, alongside a reasonable attempt to meet housing need?

Finance and partnership 1. Institutional funding in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading for risk reduction can make all the difference in easing negotiations to a mutually satisfactory conclusion: However, the policy implications of scaling up from individual cases needs to be taken into account.

Is institutional financial support already in place or planned for resettlement planning or settlement upgrading for urban risk reduction? How is the program being administered and what are the outcomes? Have the full impacts of scaling up been considered?

2. Financial incentives should be employed to encourage good practice by private developers: commercial floor space bonuses can be awarded to developers that provide low-income housing as part of their development (by increasing the allowable floor area ratio, for example). Fiscal incentives can be provided for the provision of green

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation and policies require, support, promote or offer guidance on the use of financial incentives to encourage good practice by private developers?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

Do city development planning policies support the use financial incentives to encourage good practice by private developers?

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

infrastructure that reduces risk. 3. Role of public-privatecommunity partnerships and planning gain: Public-private partnerships can have a useful role if properly planned and managed but, whilst recognizing the realities of commercial development, local authorities have to stand firm in enforcing any progressive planning legislation that is already in place and making effective use of finance from developers contributions A ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and land-sharing type of approach is recommended whereby commercial developers, the municipal authorities and community representatives work together to plan and manage sensitive land transfer, housing design and relocation phasing details

Does existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation provide for local government obtaining community benefit through developers’ contributions (planning gain)? Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation and policies facilitate and offer guidance on a ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and land-sharing approach?

Do city development planning policies provide for local government obtaining community benefit through developers’ contributions (planning gain)? Do city planner facilitate a ‘multistakeholder partnership’ and landsharing approach?

1. Protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements: develop programs aimed at protecting or relocating informal settlements in hazardous areas

Is there sufficient national/subnational government support for programs to protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements?

Are there any programs in place as the city level to protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements?

2. Housing policies should aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations: effort should be made to design and implement urban-poor friendly housing policies before large-scale resettlement is undertaken as a key prerequisite.

Do existing national/sub-national housing legislation and policies aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor and giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations?

Does the city have housing policies that aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor and giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations?

3. Adopt an integrated, multisector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups: fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading. Ensure that housing policies, including any resettlement of the urban poor, are harmonized with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development

Do existing national/sub-national housing and planning and urban development policies adopt an integrated, multi-sector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups? Do they fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading? Do they require or offer guidance on harmonized housing with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development?

Do city development and housing policies and guidance adopt an integrated, multi-sector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups? Do they fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading? Do they require or offer guidance on harmonized housing with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development?

4. Adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous low income settlements – resettlement should always be a policy of last resort: In all cases

Do existing national/sub-national housing and planning and urban development legislation and policies adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous

Do city development plans and housing policies and guidance adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous low-income settlements and give specific

Housing and resettlement policies

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

of precarious low-income settlements, planners should follow a sequential approach, giving specific recognition to the housing rights of tenants, in descending order of desirability:  In-situ upgrading  Land pooling and readjustment  Resettlement of the existing population on site in low rise or core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Resettlement nearby in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation  Partial or full on-site re-housing of the low-income population in high density, multi-storey flats through a land sharing approach.  Resettlement nearby in high density, multi-storey accommodation.  Remote resettlement in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Remote resettlement in high density, multi-storey accommodation.

low-income settlements and give specific recognition to the housing rights of tenants?

recognition to the housing rights of tenants?

5. Use urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement

Do existing national/sub-national housing and planning and urban development legislation and policies require, promote or offer guidance on the use of use urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement?

Do city planners employ urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement?

6. Urban design and urban conservation measures to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction.

Do existing national/sub-national planning and urban development legislation and policies require, promote or offer guidance on the use of urban design and urban conservation measures to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction?

Do city planners employ an urban design and urban conservation measures to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction?

Risk assessment and disaster management 1. Risk factors in planning: Assess the extent to which hazard and vulnerability parameters are incorporated in planning processes at the different levels and meet appropriate international/subnational standards and benchmarks

Are hazard and vulnerability parameters incorporated into planning processes at all levels and do they meet appropriate international standards and benchmarks? In the absence of appropriate policies that identify criteria for assessing risk at the city level, has a national/sub-national level hazard risk assessment been carried out?

2. Map and zone areas exposed to hazard risk: establish, through established procedures or a risk assessment mapping exercise, a zoning framework for the city and populated areas in its region.

Do existing national/sub-national planning and disaster management policies facilitate, support and offer guidance on hazard risk mapping and zoning at the city/city-region level?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

Do existing city development planning and disaster management policies employ hazard risk mapping?

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

3. Prioritize hazardous areas for interventions: employ risk mitigation and sharing measures and possible resettlement;

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and disaster management policies facilitate, support and offer guidance on prioritizing hazardous areas for interventions?

Do existing city development planning and disaster management policies prioritize hazardous areas for interventions?

4. Prioritize disaster-affected areas for interventions: ensure that existing development control mechanisms are sufficiently flexible to allow a rapid response to impending hazards and to support rapid recovery following a disaster. Contingency plans for reconstruction should be prepared.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and development legislation and policies provide mechanisms that are sufficiently flexible to allow a rapid response to impending hazards and to support rapid recovery following a disaster? Do they offer guidance on preparation of contingency plans for reconstruction?

Are existing city development planning and disaster management policies sufficiently flexible to allow a rapid response to impending hazards and to support rapid recovery following a disaster? Are contingency plans for reconstruction in place?

5. Community resilience action plans should be prepared for hazardous and disaster-affected local areas (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors) based on full community participation. These should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and disaster management policies facilitate, support and offer guidance on the preparation and management of community resilience action plans for risk and disaster-affected local areas?

Does the city have up-to-date community resilience action plans for risk and disaster-affected local areas? Are there mechanisms in place for their regular review and updating.

6. Prioritize critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk: plan new facilities in safe locations and retrofit or relocate existing facilities if necessary.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and disaster management policies facilitate, support and offer guidance on prioritizing critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk?

Do existing city development planning and disaster management policies prioritize critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk? Do they provide for new facilities in safe locations and retrofit or relocate existing facilities if necessary.

7. Plan and construct public and community refuges in hazardous areas: open, high elevation public spaces, robust multi storey building, located and spaced to give access within the advance warning period of any impending hazard; doubling, where possible, as centers for community use, disaster preparedness and cross-community dialogue

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and disaster management policies facilitate, support and offer guidance on planning and constructing public and community refuges?

Do existing city development planning and disaster management policies include proposals to design and construct community refuges in hazardous areas?

1. Set out priorities for capacity building and target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience: this affects the capabilities of agencies at all levels of government to understand, implement and enforce development risk-focused planning and land-use programs, plans and regulations. It includes assessing the role of line ministries and sector-based departments of urban hazard risk issues

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning, disaster management and other sector-related policies support and set out priorities for capacity building and target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience?

Has the city a strategy for capacity building and target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience?

2. Develop a training agenda and

Do existing or proposed

Has the city developed an urban

Plan implementation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

programs for government officials, technical staff and key actors; these should be aimed at improving awareness and understanding of natural hazard risks and enhance technical capacity in risk-sensitive land-use planning and urban development.

national/sub-national planning, disaster management and other sector-related policies support an urban risk and resilience training agenda and programs for government officials, technical staff and key actors at different levels of government?

risk and resilience training agenda and programs for officials and technical staff and key actors and the city and local level?

1. Create a geo-date infrastructure (GDI) as a legacy for urban management and ongoing plan review: Ensure planners have access to an up to date spatially referenced database of hazard risk related information that can be used to produce and update risk-based plans on a regular basis.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development policies support or offer guidance on the use of a geo-date infrastructure (GDI) for ongoing urban risk management and plan review?

Do city planners have access to an up to date spatially referenced database of hazard risk related information that can be used to produce and update risk-based plans on a regular basis?

2. Carry out periodic surveys to collect up-to-date data on planning for hazard risk reduction: this includes analysis of up-to-date satellite imagery, use of natural resource and environmental maps. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ground truthingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, land use surveys and and household interview surveys.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development policies support and/or offer guidance on periodic surveys to collect up-to-date data on planning for hazard risk reduction

Does the city carry out periodic surveys to collect up-to-date data on planning for hazard risk reduction.

3. Train planners in the use of up-to-date risk-based and climate change adaptation planning tools: including flow analysis, overlay mapping and scenario-based GIS.

Do existing or proposed national/sub-national planning and urban development policies support and/or offer guidance on the use of up-to-date risk-based and climate changer adaptation planning tools?

Are city planners trained in the use of up-to-date risk-based and climate changer adaptation planning tools?

Knowledge base for planning decision support

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 5.2: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist General good practice and policy recommendations:

Project checklist for task managers:*

 Is the proposed infrastructure investment project able to reinforce development control measures aimed at managing development and curbing informal development and illicit construction in hazardous areas?

2. Prevent informal development in hazardous areas: develop measures to discourage and establishment of informal settlement in hazardous areas

 Does the project employ measures to discourage and establishment of informal settlement in hazardous areas?

 Are the project’s hazard risk reduction measures harmonized with existing land-use regulations and procedures at the city level? Are appropriate international standards of risk management and indicators incorporated within them?

4. City and city-region development plans should address hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation: appropriate spatial planning frameworks, including Master Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks or a Disaster Risk Mismanagement Master Plan (DRMMP) should be drawn up that address the hazard risks and the need to adapt to climate change impacts in place and regularly reviewed and updated.

 Does the project contribute in any way to city planning policies and city-region development plans addressing hazard risk reduction and climate change adaptation/  Does it support the preparation or updating of appropriate spatial planning frameworks, (Master Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks or a Disaster Risk Mismanagement Master Plan) that address the hazard risks and the need to adapt to climate change impacts?

5. Plan to manage urban development within the carrying capacity of natural resources and the environment.

 Does the project contribute in any way to city development planning policies managing development within the carrying capacity of natural resources of the city region and the wider environment?

6. The city regional scale should be adopted as the spatial framework for planning for urban risk reduction and resilience: See Section 3…

 Does the project support city planning for risk reduction at the city region scale?

 Does the project contribute in any way to development plans coordinated with plans at higher-level political and environmental management levels

8. Use an urban design approach to ensure a 53 compact and sustainable urban form. New settlements should be planned as sustainable, walkable transit-orientated compact, mixed-use

 Does the project employ an urban design approach to ensure a compact and sustainable urban form in the planning of any new settlements and the upgrading and regeneration of existing

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

neighborhoods, with the necessary investment in workspace, services, public and community facilities. Regeneration and upgrading of existing areas should follow the same principles, allowing for the necessary improvements in quality of life for residents and users. 9. Employ participatory action plans for local areas associated with proposed infrastructure investment (neighborhoods, districts, transport corridors): Action plans should incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as an essential element of any risk reduction approach.

areas associated with the investment strategy?

 Does the project involve participatory action plans for local areas associated with proposed infrastructure investment? Do such plans incorporate urban design frameworks or guidelines as in addressing hazard risk reduction?

 Does the project design conform to statutory public consultation and planning appeal processes?

2. Urban planning for risk reduction should employ platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation: create working range of networks, alliances and partnerships at both the sector and area levels.

 How does the project employ platforms and mechanisms to facilitate key stakeholder participation and create working range of networks, alliances and partnerships at both the sector and area levels?

 How does the project involve community participation in any resettlement planning or settlement upgrading?

4. Forced eviction should be avoided at all costs; forced eviction in most cases is an infringement of basic human rights. All other alternatives should be considered first.

 Does the project promote alternative to forced evictions?

5. The needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community must be taken into account in planning for risk reduction: this includes tenants and all those without ownership rights,

 How does the project address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of the community including tenants and all those without ownership rights in planning for risk reduction?

 How does the project address existing economic relationships, livelihoods and social capital in any resettlement plans, alongside a reasonable attempt to meet housing need?

 Is institutional financial support already in place or planned for resettlement planning or settlement upgrading for urban risk reduction related to the project? How is the program being administered and what are the outcomes? Have the full impacts of scaling up been considered?

 Does the project support the use financial incentives to encourage good practice by private developers?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

3. Role of public-private-community partnerships and planning gain: Public-private partnerships can have a useful role if properly planned and managed but, whilst recognizing the realities of commercial development, local authorities have to stand firm in enforcing any progressive planning legislation that is already in place and making effective use of finance from developers contributions A ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and land-sharing type of approach is recommended whereby commercial developers, the municipal authorities and community representatives work together to plan and manage sensitive land transfer, housing design and relocation phasing details

 Does the project obtain community benefit through developers’ contributions (planning gain)?  Does it employ a ‘multi-stakeholder partnership’ and land-sharing approach?

Housing and resettlement policies 1. Protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements: develop programs aimed at protecting or relocating informal settlements in hazardous areas

 What actions does the project propose to protect and upgrade or relocate existing at risk informal settlements?

2. Housing policies should aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations: effort should be made to design and implement urban-poor friendly housing policies before largescale resettlement is undertaken as a key prerequisite.

 Does the project contribute in any way to developing city level housing policies that aim at providing safe affordable housing for the urban poor and giving priority to those already living in hazardous locations?

3. Adopt an integrated, multi-sector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups: fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading. Ensure that housing policies, including any resettlement of the urban poor, are harmonized with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development

 Does the project adopt an integrated, multi-sector approach to housing and re-housing for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups?  Does it fully take into account the residential, community services, access and livelihoods needs and social capital of vulnerable populations subject to possible relocation or upgrading?  Do the project harmonize any related housing development proposals with strategic spatial plans for transport, economic and infrastructure development?

4. Adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous low income settlements – resettlement should always be a policy of last resort: In all cases of precarious low-income settlements, planners should follow a sequential approach, giving specific recognition to the housing rights of tenants, in descending order of desirability:  In-situ upgrading  Land pooling and readjustment  Resettlement of the existing population on site in low rise or core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Resettlement nearby in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation  Partial or full on-site re-housing of the lowincome population in high density, multi-storey flats through a land sharing approach.  Resettlement nearby in high density, multistorey accommodation.  Remote resettlement in low rise, core housing or sites and services accommodation.  Remote resettlement in high density, multistorey accommodation.

 Does the project adopt a sequential approach to planning for hazardous low-income settlements and give specific recognition to the housing rights of tenants?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

5. Use urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement

 Does the project employ urban design as a tool in upgrading and resettlement for resolving potential areas of conflict and supporting community involvement?

6. Urban design and urban conservation measures to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction.

 Does the project employ urban design and urban conservation measures to ensure that the cultural needs and concerns of communities are addressed in physical planning for risk reduction?

 Are hazard and vulnerability parameters incorporated into project planning processes at all levels and do they meet appropriate international standards and benchmarks? 

2. Map and zone areas exposed to hazard risk: establish, through established procedures or a risk assessment mapping exercise, a zoning framework for the city and populated areas in its region.

 Does the project employ hazard risk mapping and can it provide legacy value to the city?

3. Prioritize hazardous areas for interventions: employ risk mitigation and sharing measures and possible resettlement;

 How does the project prioritize hazardous areas for interventions?

 Does the project directly or indirectly promote rapid response to impending hazards and support rapid recovery following a disaster? Does it contribute in any way to contingency plans for reconstruction in place?

 Does the project establish community resilience action plans for risk and disaster-affected local areas? Are there mechanisms in place for their regular review and updating?

6. Prioritize critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk: plan new facilities in safe locations and retrofit or relocate existing facilities if necessary.

 Does the project prioritize critical facilities for interventions to reduce exposure and vulnerability to risk? Do it provide for new facilities in safe locations and retrofit or relocate existing facilities if necessary.

7. Plan and construct escape routes and community refuges in hazardous areas: open, high elevation public spaces, robust multi storey building, located and spaced to give access within the advance warning period of any impending hazard; doubling, where possible, as centers for community use, disaster preparedness and crosscommunity dialogue

 Does the project include proposals to design and construct community refuges in hazardous areas and community refuges in hazardous areas?

Plan implementation 1. Set out priorities for capacity building and target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience: this affects the capabilities of agencies at all levels of government to understand, implement and enforce development risk-focused planning and land-use programs, plans and regulations. It includes assessing the role of line ministries and sector-based departments of urban hazard risk issues

 Does the project target investment in building critical capabilities for urban risk reduction and building urban resilience at city level?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

2. Develop a training agenda and programs for government officials, technical staff and key actors; these should be aimed at improving awareness and understanding of natural hazard risks and enhance technical capacity in risk-sensitive landuse planning and urban development.

 Does the project have an urban risk and resilience training agenda and include programs for officials and technical staff and key actors and the city and local level?

Knowledge base for planning decision support 1. Create a geo-date infrastructure (GDI) as a legacy for urban management and ongoing plan review: Ensure planners have access to an up to date spatially referenced database of hazard risk related information that can be used to produce and update risk-based plans on a regular basis.

 Does the project create an up to date spatially referenced database of hazard risk related information (geo-date infrastructure – GDI) that can be used to produce and update risk-based city plans on a regular basis?

2. Carry out periodic surveys to collect up-to-date data on planning for hazard risk reduction: this includes analysis of up-to-date satellite imagery, use of natural resource and environmental maps. ‘ground truthing’, land use surveys and and household interview surveys.

 Will the project carry out surveys to collect up-todate data on planning for hazard risk reduction?

3. Train planners in the use of up-to-date riskbased and climate change adaptation planning tools: including flow analysis, overlay mapping and scenario-based GIS.

 Will the project train city planners in the use of upto-date risk-based and climate change adaptation planning tools?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Environmental planning for urban resilience Sound environmental management and planning, based on the principles of the ecosystem approach and urban landscape design, can reduce disaster risk and make urban societies more resilient during post disaster recovery. Science increasingly recognizes the importance of sustainable resource management and maintaining biodiversity for ecological resilience and livelihood security in the face of disasters.1 Sustainable management of natural systems can be considered both within the city boundaries and also at a broader spatial scale such as the watershed or coastal zone. The management of natural systems as buffers or as green infrastructure can prevent disasters from occurring and, through pro-active planning, provide management solutions that can deliver a range of benefits. These benefits â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ecosystem services â&#x20AC;&#x201C; often omitted from traditional economic thinking should be considered fully in project design, investment decision-making as part of a full cost-benefit analysis.This section highlights the essential environmental management elements that need to be considered within the investment project management cycle to ensure resilience is mainstreamed into urban decision-making.

Overview 6.1

Urban environmental planning principles Extreme natural hazardous events can generate adverse environmental consequences that affect not only people in urban and peri-urban areas but also the ecosystems in which they live an on which they depend.2 In turn, degraded environments can cause or augment the negative impacts of disasters. These inter-relationships need to be properly understood to provide a baseline for mainstreaming urban resilience. Box 6.1: Principles for good practice in environmental planning for urban resilience 1. The larger scale of environmental management: Sound ecosystem management to reduce risk requires integrated land use policies that address environmental considerations beyond city boundaries. Urban infrastructure design needs to be set in the wider context of environmental management at the regional or national scale. 2. Environmental management through ecosystem protection and restoration: Environmental management policies within and beyond urban areas, including those embedded in urban planning, should promote sustainable use of ecosystems including specific elements such as the conservation and protection of soil, water and vegetation. 3. Addressing the needs of the poor and involving communities: The disproportionate impact of hazards on the poor needs to be reflected in environmental policies and strategies and community-based environmental management programs. 4. Green/blue infrastructure and environmental buffers: Environmental buffers and natural or green/blue infrastructure, including restorative measures and measures on a regional scale can mitigate the need for traditional engineered structures approaches to hazard risk reduction. 5. Urban landscape design: At the city scale, urban landscape design has a key role to play, at the micro scale, in the landscaping and paving of streets and open spaces, and at the macro scale, where the relationship of amenity use and ecological and environmental management functions needs careful consideration.. 6. Ecosystem services : Ecosystem services provide a multitude of benefits to urban residents including those essential to maintaining urban resilience; all such benefits should be assessed as part of any infrastructure investment cost-benefit analysis.

Adger, , Hughes, T P, Folke, C, Carpenter, S R and RockstrĂśm, J (2005) Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science. 309:1036-1039. 2 Mainka, S. A. and McNeely, J. (2011) Ecosystem considerations for post-disaster recovery: Lessons from China, Pakistan, and elsewhere for recovery planning in Haiti. Ecology and Society, 16(1):13 [online] <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art13>. [accessed 2 May 2011] WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Global climate change is expected to exacerbate the rate of loss and degradation of certain ecosystems, such as wetlands, upon which many urban systems depend. To build resilience and to improve human security the implications of the tripartite relationship between urban disaster reduction, climate change and ecosystem degradation should be embedded in urban decisionmaking. Disaster risk reduction, ecosystem management, development planning and climate change adaptation are all linked and urban and regional planning policies need to take an integrated approach to these issues. On this basis, the key principles in Box 6.1 are used to structure this chapter to provide guidance on the contribution of environmental planning to mainstreaming urban resilience into infrastructure investment decision making during the project management cycle.

Policies and Practice 6.2

The larger scale of environmental management As noted in Chapter 5, urban areas do not operate in isolation and depend on the effective functioning and productivity of rural systems.3 When either a rural or an urban area is affected by a disaster there can be a reciprocal effect on the other (Box 6.2). Furthermore, the development and expansion of cities can modify rural and peri-urban areas, transforming the natural environment and generating or even magnifying hazards.4 Consequently, the environmental considerations of urban resilience operate beyond municipal boundaries and extend into broader spheres of influence such as watersheds and coastal zones. Box 6.2: Urbanization, ecosystem degradation and flooding, Vietnam5 Urbanization along with the increasing impacts of climate change and the effects of rapid population growth, globalization and industrialization, have all contributed to devastating catastrophes in Viet Namâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent history, including the floods of 1999 in the central Thua Thien Hue Province which claimed 325 lives and caused damages estimated at $120 million. Additionally, the degradation of ecosystems, through deforestation and the conversion of traditional agricultural land to residential areas, has exacerbated the impact of floods, prolonging inundation in lowland areas and creating more flash flooding in upland areas. The linkages between urbanization, economic development and disaster risk are manifest in the Thua Thien Hue Province. Impacts traverse the natural and social environments. Deforestation in the highlands has not occurred in isolation from urban demands for timber, the relocation of people from one region to another and the push for agricultural land to increase crop production and export income. Spatial linkages have not been reflected in environment and disaster management policies of the Thua Thien Hue province. In addition, limited stakeholder engagement in the process of formulating disaster and environment management plans has undermined and weakened the connection between provincial levels and local communities. As a result the policies and programs designed for disaster risk management have been considered impractical. In order to successfully mitigate impacts of disasters it is now recognized that hydro-meteorological disasters are an integral component of the challenges of sustainable development and environmental management, and not just a matter of planning for emergency aid and humanitarian assistance. This perspective links not just the ruralâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;urban continuum but poverty alleviation, stakeholder empowerment, and the allocation of public and private functions and responsibilities. The planning and design of urban infrastructure and operation of infrastructure services, in particular those relating to water, sanitation and waste management is dependent on environmental management at the wider regional scale. For example, regional scale watershed management will condition whether a city can supply piped and treated water for domestic purposes. In developing world cities lack of piped water supply, normally most affecting poor households, will mean they are

Revi, A (2008) Climate change risk: An adaptation and mitigation risk agenda for Indian cities. Environment and Urbanisation, 20(1):207-229. 4 UNDP (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. New York: UNDP 5 Tran, P. and Shaw, R. (2007) Towards an integrated approach of disaster and environment management: a case study of Thua Thien Hue province, Central Viet Nam. Environmental Hazards, 7, 271-282.Tran and Shaw (2007). WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

dependent on purchasing water from water vendors out of scarce income or on wells that are easily contaminated by nearby pit latrines with related health hazards.6 The integrated approach which has developed since the 1999 flooding in Vietnam (Box 6.2) has established the following key principles: Hydro-meteorological hazard management is an essential component of sustainable development and ecosystem management.  The need to understand the linkage between urban and rural areas, and enunciate these in relevant policies, legislation and regulation is vital.



An assessment of trade-offs and the need to understand the implications of foregoing short-term economic benefits for long-term environmental and social sustainability is essential to embed resilience in urban communities.

6.3

Environmental management through ecosystem protection and restoration Effective environmental management can reduce human vulnerability to impacts from extreme natural events, such as hurricanes, landslides, tsunamis, floods and earthquakes. Healthy and sustainably managed ecosystems reduce vulnerability to hazards by supporting livelihoods, while acting as physical buffers to reduce the impact of hazard events and enhancing post disaster recovery.7 Conversely, there is growing evidence that degraded ecosystems reduce both community resilience for sustainable development as well as disaster preparedness and recovery.8 Environmental management addressing the sustainable use of ecosystems suggest the following general good practice implications for information management, urban planning and disaster preparedness (see Box 6.3):  Develop quantitative hazard zoning mapping and environmental data-based GIS to inform planning and environmental management.  Develop urban planning policies to restrict built development within areas of high hazard risk.  Develop policies to improve land use measures and land management practices to reduce landslide generation risk.  Invest in early warning systems and public awareness programs. Future environmental degradation will threaten the resilience and effectiveness of any infrastructure investment. It will compromise the welfare of the urban residents and increase their vulnerability to floods, landslides and other hazards. Pre-existing environmental degradation worsens the impact of any hazard both through increasing exposure to risk and reducing resilience to recovery. Both physical and policy-driven causes of environmental degradation need to be identified and addressed. Environmental management through ecosystem protection and restoration Box 6.3: Ecosystem change and landslides in the Nilgiris District, India910 The Nilgiris District in the Western Ghats has experienced an increase in the frequency of landslides in recent years. In a major event in October and November 1978 heavy rains triggered more than 100 landslides resulting in the deaths of 90 people. Significant landslide events have occurred in 1993, 1995, 2002, 2007 and again in November 2009 when over 80 people died and wide-ranging damage to property resulted.

WEDC (2004) Sustainable urban drainage in low-income countries. Brazil's Early Urban Transition: What Can It Teach Urbanizing Countries_IIED.pdf p.35. 7 Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Ash, N. (2009) Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security. Revised Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.; Holt-Gimenez, E. (2002) Measuring farmers' agro-ecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management and impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 93:87-105. 8 Emerton, L.(2009) Investing in natural infrastructure: the economic value of Indonesia’s Marine Protected Areas. Bali, Indonesia: Coral Triangle Center. The Nature Conservancy. See also Section 6.5. 9

Kumar, S V and Bhagavanulu, D V S (2008) Effect of deforestation on landslides in Nilgiris Distict – A Case Study. Journal if the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 36(1):105-108. 10 Ganapathy, G ., Mahendran, K and Sekar, S K (2010) Need and urgency of landslide risk planning for Nilgiri District, Tamil Nadu State, India. International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences, 1(1):1-13. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Whilst rainfall is a significant factor, there is increasing evidence that unplanned tea plantations and associated deforestation in the Nilgiris District may have degraded soils and ultimately increased the likelihood of landslides. One study estimated that over a quarter of all forests have been cleared in the Western Ghats between 1973 and 1995, increasing rates of soil erosion and run-off. In order to reduce the risk to human life and damage to infrastructure increasing efforts are being made to improve both landslide risk planning, through the engagement with local communities, scientists and planners, and ecosystem management to ensure that the implications of land-use change and habitat management, such as that resulting from deforestation, are understood in terms of reducing the potential of landslides and minimizing the consequential losses. A review of examples with their roots in the principles of ecological restoration, drawn mainly from Asia but also including case studies from around the world, has been collated by Kim (2008).11 Many of these examples provide clear guidance on how natural systems can be utilized to improve resilience to disasters within and beyond urban areas. Key actions developed from the examples presented in this study, which can be applied to the restoration of ecosystems within the context of disaster risk reducing and improving urban resilience include:  Develop policies to protect existing environmental resources and address degradation: Restore both site and wider ecological integrity, structure and function.  Work within the watershed and at the appropriate landscape scale or regional context based on a good understanding of its natural functioning in response to a range of hydro-meteorological conditions. More general lessons for infrastructure investment from these studies include:  Anticipate future changes in physical and socio-economic circumstances as far as possible but build adaptability into policies to allow for uncertainties;  Monitor and adapt solutions where unforeseen change necessitates intervention and learn from such lessons.  Improve skills, awareness and capacity to develop well functioning multi-disciplinary teams.

6.4

Addressing the needs of the poor and involving communities Poor people, especially in developing countries and particularly those whose livelihoods are based on natural resources and subsistence farming, are being disproportionally affected by the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events resulting from climatic variations.12 Cheap, local farm produce is often critical to the basic food security of the urban poor, while many people practice a pattern of cyclical migration appending part of their time on cash earning activities in cities and the remainder on agriculture-related activities in their original home villages.12 The people affected by reoccurring disasters are often the most dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, and the appropriate management of ecosystems can play a critical role in their ability to prevent, cope with, and recover from disasters. Community-based approaches and direct involvement in management of natural resources are key to this. They ensure local awareness of the value of ecosystems and the services they provide. Alternative forms of livelihood may need to be developed to protect natural areas and to increase the resilience of communities to hazard risk. Government has an important role to play in developing an appropriate, enabling regulatory, policy and institutional framework. Policy co-ordination and cross sectoral working will be necessary to create the necessary integrated approach.

Kim, K.G. 2008. Ecological restoration. International Urban Training Centre, Seoul University and UNHABITAT, Seoul, South Korea. 12 Tacoli C WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 6.4: Impacts of the Fiji floods on the poor In January 2009, flooding hit the Pacific Island of Fiji. This was reported as the worst in the history of the country since the 1931 floods. A number of consecutive flood events extended over several days affecting large areas of the country. Excessive rainfall was experienced for more than seven days resulting in the majority of the low lying areas remaining inundated for many days and in places experienced flood levels of up to 3-5m in depth.13 The floods struck in the important agricultural sugar belt. The total economic cost of the floods, through damage to infrastructure and losses to growers and millers, was estimated to be about $24 million with an additional humanitarian cost of about $5 million incurred. Impacts from the flooding were disproportionately skewed towards the poor. Using the Food Poverty Line (FPL) and Basic Needs Poverty Line (BNPL) adjusted to a 2008 equivalent value using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), it has been estimated that about 42 percent of flood-affected farms would struggle to provide even their family’s basic food needs. This is in comparison with 19 percent of farmers that were expected to fall below the FPL without the prevailing flooding. In terms of basic needs poverty measure, 77% of the flood affected sugarcane families are expected to fall below the poverty line, as compared with 54% the families, if flooding had not occurred. Recommendations arising out of the 2009 floods in Fiji and other case studies in this guide suggest the following good practice measures that specifically target environmental management and protection of the poor:  Adoption of a pro-poor development strategy that targets poor communities living in areas prone to natural hazards.  Integration of disaster risk reduction considerations in all pro-poor development initiatives, in all infrastructure construction and maintenance initiatives and resource allocations that reflect considerations of disaster risk reduction, particularly in flood-prone areas.  Improvement of the coverage and quality of poverty-focused data on floods and other climate related hazards, including GIS-based flood risk and vulnerability mapping, including the impacts of floods and other disasters on human livelihood and wellbeing at household, sectoral, and national levels.  Adoption of an integrated approach towards sustainable livelihood development, environmental management and disaster risk reduction to ensure future resilience;  Alternative livelihoods to be established to reduce pressure on natural resources and to prevent ecosystem degradation;  Adoption of an enabling policy and legal environment to formulate appropriate policies and laws that: (1) promote environment and low-income livelihoods, (2) improve co-ordination of government policies and (3) enhance community access and control of natural resources;  Raising awareness and capacity building across national and local government and within civil society organizations in order to future-proof Improved environmental management and disaster risk reduction.

6.5

Green/blue infrastructure and environmental buffers Urban ecosystems are increasingly regarded as ‘green infrastructure’ or environmental buffers. The term green infrastructure generally applies to an interconnected network of green spaces that delivers multiple benefits to human society.14 This concept has been expanded to embrace ‘blue infrastructure’, green spaces which include water, such as the Dutch concept of ‘Room for the River’

Lal, P.N., Rita, R. and Khatri, N. 2009. Economic Costs of the 2009 Floods in the Fiji Sugar Belt and Policy Implications. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 52pp. 14 st Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T. (2002) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21 century. Renewable Resources Journal. 20(3), 12–17; Natural England. (2009) Green Infrastructure Guidance. NE176 Natural England, Peterborough, UK;Natural England. (2009) Green Infrastructure Guidance. NE176 Natural England, Peterborough, UK. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

applied across the lower Rhine in order to reduce the impacts of flooding and to enhance the benefits flowing to society.15 The paradigm shift from green and blue areas as nature reserves, or worse as wastelands to be drained or in-filled, to their consideration as functional infrastructure or buffers places natural ecosystems more firmly on the urban planning and management agenda. Green and blue infrastructure, based primarily on the principles of ecological restoration and delivery of ecosystem services, can contribute to urban resilience and risk reduction in several key ways: a) Hydrological management, flood control and storm protection (Box 6.5, Table 6.1) b) Climate change adaptation and mitigation, and mitigation of microclimatic effects (Box 6.6) c) Protection against landslides and mudflows (Box 6.4, 6.6) Natural areas are centrally important for flood management and storm protection. From the most basic example of restricting development in river flood plains or coastal areas at risk, through to the protection provided by coastal wetlands against tsunamis and storm surges, the maintenance and restoration of natural ecosystems is crucial. Coastal wetlands provide multiple benefits including protecting the landward areas from flood damage and shoreline erosion by acting as a buffer against wave action as in the case of coastal mangroves acting as a sponge and slowing down flood waters as in the case of coastal marshlands.16 According to the Mangrove Action Project (MAP) mangrove forests may be disappearing faster than rainforests. Mangroves once covered 75% of the coastlines of tropical and subtropical countries but less than 50% remain, of which more than half is degraded.17 Box 6.5: Restoring mangroves through community-based management in Thailand18 The UNEP/GEF South China Sea project ran from February 2002 to December 2008 and was aimed at reversing environmental degradation trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand. 24 demonstration sites and pilot projects were realized in China and South East Asia (Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam) relating to mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, sea grass and land-based pollution. The Trat Province Mangrove Demonstration Site aimed to strengthen and expand community-based management of local mangrove forests. The project began to reverse environmental degradation arising out of unsustainable patterns of use and lack of understanding of the economic benefits provided by mangroves. The project aimed to strengthen the links between the conservation of mangrove forests and the livelihoods of local people. Over three years 900 hectares of mangrove were replanted increasing the biodiversity of the forest. Illegal mangrove cutting was reduced through provision of alternative sustainable livelihoods for local communities. A business plan for sustainable financing of the management of mangroves including diversification of income sources and improving financial security of local people with low incomes, identification of new revenue streams and new opportunities and investigating the feasibility of local ecotourism. With much of the Netherlands reclaimed from marshes (the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;polderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; system) and/or below sea level and vulnerable to coastal flooding, the Dutch have long recognized the importance of working with nature against its hazards to maximize resilience. Natural sand dunes provide lines of defense. The vegetation that stabilizes the dunes is protected from human damage. Additional flood protection is provided by an extensive system of dikes, dating back to Roman times and massively extended from the twelfth century onwards. Although structural rather than nonstructural, Dutch dikes are essentially artificial dunes of sand and clay, reinforced with stone and

Room for the River (2007) Safety for four million Dutch citizens: Room for the River. [online] http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/media/18566/brochureeng.pdf [accessed 2 May 2011] 16 FEMA, Draft Strategy Jamaica 17 Vidal, J., 2005. The Guardian, 6 January 2005. http://www.earthisland.org/map/ 18 Mayor of London (2010) Draft London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

wood and stabilized with grass, that recreate the form and complement the flood prevention function of those found in nature. This principle of people working with nature underlies the proactive urban landscape design approach to green and blue infrastructure that is often necessary to adopt in establishing their functions in urban areas (see Section 6.6). An example is given in Box 6.4 that illustrates how London is linking natural and artificially created green and water areas to create a ‘green grid’ that provides a range of ecosystem services including several that contribute directly to increasing resilience.

PERMANENT LAKES, RESERVOIRS

SEASONAL LAKES, MARSHES, SWAMPS INCLUDING FLOODPLAINS

FORESTED WETLANDS, MARSHES, SWAMPS, INCLUDING FLOODPLAINS

ALPINE AND TUNDRA WETLANDS

SPRINGS AND OASES

UNDERGROUND WETLANDS, INCLUDING CAVES AND GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS

MANGROVES

LAGOONS, INCLUDING SALT PONDS

INTERTIDAL FLATS, BEACHES AND DUNCES

KELP BEDS

ROCK AND SHELL REEFS

SEAGRASS BEDS

PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY RIVERS AND STREAMS

Table 6.1: Relative importance of wetland types for natural hazard regulation19

CORAL REEFS

ESTUARIES AND MARSHES

INLAND WETLANDS

COASTAL WETLANDS

The information represents expert opinion for a global average; local and regional variations will exist

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

of LondonÕs rivers by 2015 through the London Rivers Action Plan.

LondonÕs ecosystem services ¥ helping to reduce noise and air pollution ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific London is the greenest world city, and the ¥ providing places for recreational and leisure quality and abundance of its green spaces activities that improve health. provides the opportunity for Londoners and visitors to have access to wildlife in an urban These ecosystem services are essential to the setting. LondonÕs green spaces (private gardens, wellbeing of Londoners and LondonÕs resilience to public parks, wild spaces, urban forest, river and climate change. Improving the quality, quantity, 20 of functions transport corridors) perform a range connectivity and diversity of LondonÕs green Box 6.6: London’s green grid known as Ôecosystem servicesÕ that improve the spaces will increase their resilience and therefore London has a wealth of green spaces and vegetation in its public parks, private gardens, quality of life in London. These include: increase the capacity of London and LondonÕs woodlands, street trees, wetlands, river and transport corridors. Property owners are beginning to adapt21to a changing climate. make use of multiple opportunities for greening biodiversity roofs and to walls. These green and greened areas ¥ supporting biodiversity perform a range of ecosystem services essential to quality of life in the city and ensure a high level reducing ßood risk by absorbing and Some of the adaptation measures required to of ¥resilience, including: temporarily retaining rainfall ensure London continues to offer its residents a  Supporting biodiversity ¥ moderating the temperature by offsetting the high quality of life will also increase, or add to  Reducing flood risk by absorbing and temporarily retaining rainfall urban heat island effect the cityÕs biodiversity. Table 7.1 highlights the  Moderating the temperature by offsetting the urban heat island effect ¥ reducing energy demand by providing shade multiple beneÞts provided by green spaces and  Reducing energy demand by providing shade and reducing wind speeds and reducing windspeeds  Helping to reduce noise and air pollution street trees.  Providing recreational leisure Table 7.1 Ecosystem services places provided for by green spaces andand street trees activities that improve health. Ecosystem service

Green roofs/ walls

Street trees

Wetlands

River corridors

Woodlands

Grasslands

Reduce ßood risk

!!!

Offset urban heat island

!!!

Reduce energy demand

Reduce noise/air pollution

Support biodiversity

Recreation/Leisure

!! !!!

!!!

Improving the quality, quantity, connectivity and diversity of London’s green spaces will increase the city’s resilience and capacity to adapt to a changing climate. As part of the wider regeneration of the East London sub-region, a ‘Green Grid’ is being delivered through a program of projects designed to connect, add to enhance the potential of existing green spaces to absorb and store water, cool the vicinity, provide amenity space and diverse habitats for wildlife. More than £20 million-worth of projects have already been delivered. Planning guidance published by the Mayor of London enables implementation of the Green Grid through borough-level and sub-regional planning.22 A Londonwide Green Grid is also planned. Many good examples exist from cities across the world on the design, implementation and management of green and blue infrastructure. A generic review has been conducted by Kazmierczak and Carter (2010) that aims to showcase blue and green urban infrastructure in terms of improving resilience to climate change (see Box 6.7).23 Box 6.7: Seattle: Using vegetation to limit the hazard of landslides24 Climate change is predicted to increase ground instability in the areas around Seattle through more frequent and intense precipitation saturating the soil, with increased risk of landslides. The city has collaborated with the US Geological Survey and the State of Washington to identify the areas prone to landslides and issued regulations on how landslide risk could be prevented. The regulations are embedded within the Seattle Municipal Code and require the maintenance and restoration of vegetation in areas prone to landslides. These regulations are also promoted more widely to local residents through user-friendly ‘Client Assistance Memos’ and public meetings.

Mayor of London (2010) Draft London Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

21 22

Footnote 100 Kazmierczak, A., and Carter, J. (2010) 24 Ibid. 23

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Lessons for good practice include:  Investing in improving the health of natural ecosystem for flood mitigation through an investment in integrated river catchment management, including sustainable management of upstream forestry, good farm husbandry, and management of remnant natural freshwater wetlands;  Designing self-sustaining, non-structural solutions which require minimal intervention or proactive management;  In designing environmental buffers, landscaping interventions and engineered measures to complement, enhance and, where appropriate emulate the resilience effects produced by nature and existing ecosystems;  Increasing investment in the maintenance of physical infrastructures including drainage canals, drains and infield farm drains to reduce flooding risk.

6.6

Urban landscape design Urban landscape design is nowadays seen as a key tool for environmental management and planning at the city scale. Extensive advice exists on best practice approaches to sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) that is central to this approach.25 This is being is an increasingly applied to storm water management through the use of green infrastructure (Boxes 6.8 to 6.10). The basic principle of SUDS is to make use of a range of managed approaches to storm water drainage to minimize the risk of flooding and pollution of natural waterways whilst optimizing a range of ecosystem services. It includes: Reducing runoff through maximizing the area of permeable land; Using permeable or semi-permeable surfaces where paving is required; Creating landscaped water retention areas; Employing wetland areas for drainage and processing of grey water from residential development;  Opening up culverted streams; using natural drainage channels such as swales and the use of green roofs that absorb rainwater hitting their surface and slow down the rate of runoff.26    

Land use planning includes indentifying, zoning and protecting green areas and natural drainage corridors. Planning guidance and development control act together to try to ensure that homeowners and developers maximize the amount of natural on-site drainage whilst also being aware of the opportunity to deliver on a range of other ecosystem services.

WEDC (2004) Sustainable Drainage Systems in Low-income Countries; American Society of Landscape Architects (2008) 26 Environmental Agency, SUDS - swales and basins; <http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37608.aspx> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 6.8: Leveraging the landscape to manage water27 The term ‘Green infrastructure’ is used to describe how networks of natural ecosystems also function as community infrastructure, providing ecosystem services and improving environmental sustainability. In managing storm water in cities, green infrastructure can be defined as man-made systems that mimic natural approaches. Green roofs, bioswales, bioretention ponds, and permeable pavements are a few key examples of local green infrastructure, and all work by turning hard asphalt surfaces into green, absorbent ones. For example, Green roofs can retain 40-60 percent of stormwater hitting rooftops. Bioswales and retention ponds can absorb water and channel or hold excess run-off, cleansing pollutants in the process. However, even just adding extra trees, which consume lots of water, can help. Evergreens and conifers were found to intercept 35 percent of water hitting them.28 Adding in green infrastructure systems is not only good for managing water, but also good for communities. Green infrastructure can lower air temperatures, which is crucial in cities facing the Urban Heat Island effect. Green roofs can double-up as rooftop parks, farms, and natural habitats for wildlife, providing a range of benefits. Chicago alone has seven million square feet of green roofs, which are often filled with native plants (See Box 7.5 in Chapter 7). It has major plans for sustainable paving of streets – see below. For communities facing tight budgets, green infrastructure systems are also the most cost-effective way to manage stormwater when compared with rebuilding crumbling underground pipes. Philadelphia, which charges homeowners and local companies for their runoff, is now considering $1.6 billion plan to use natural systems to alleviate its major stormwater management problems.29

American Society of Landscape Architects, Designing our Future: Sustainable Landscapes – Leveraging the Landscape to Manage Water <http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/Vid_Watermanagement.html> 28 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 29 Source: The Vancouver Sun, Grey to Green: Jumpstarting Private Investment WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Particularly in developing world cities, sustainable urban drainage has implications for public health hazards. In response the World Health Organization advocates an environmental management approach (Box 6.9) Box 6.9: Sustainable urban drainage, environmental management and public health30 The WHO advocate an environmental management approach to malaria control which includes interventions like stream straightening and removal of vegetation in some situations or conversely, filling, leveling and planting. Careful attention needs to be paid to the design of sustainable drainage solutions particularly with regards to the drainage of clean water, in which malaria carrying mosquitoes breed. The use of environmental management techniques is a cost effective way of strengthening vector control activities that, at the overall institutional level, rely on the use of drugs, bed-nets and insecticides. The sustainability of these activities, in recent years, has been undermined by the development of resistance and concerns over the long-term environmental impacts of insecticides and other persistent organic pollutants. Environmental management techniques ideally should be coupled with sound environmental health education initiatives and provision of adequate sanitation, piped water provision and solid waste disposal. The Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project in Seoul (Box 6.10) is an example of removing unwanted infrastructure and greening the city as part of an urban revitalization program. While it is better not to have built the infrastructure in the first place, there is a great temptation of culvert streams running through existing urban areas as they are often the only location where new roads can be put in place to relieve the pressure on existing settlements. Additionally, they frequently act as open sewers and sites for fly tipping increasing the health risks associated with them which culverting over can quickly address. Culverting streams for combined storm water drainage and sewage is sometimes convenient and cost effective but the long-term consequences should be kept in mind. For example, London’s main sewers built in the nineteenth consist largely of culverted streams. The city is now required to build a 30km tunnel under the River Thames (the ‘super sewer’) in order to carry away their periodic overflow to a sewerage treatment plant to meet more stringent recently introduced EU environmental requirements. This will cost the water users in the region around £2 billion through increase rates and cause huge disruption to central parts of London. Box 6.10: Flood management and sustainable urban drainage in Seoul31 In Seoul, the 2005 Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project has created a 6 km public recreation space centered on a seasonal stream in the central business district in Seoul, Korea. During a period of rapid economic growth, the stream was transformed into a culvert to make space for transportation infrastructure. In a $900 million effort to improve the environmental quality of Seoul, the metropolitan government removed concrete surfaces and elevated highways to release the historic stream and create a park and floodway, thereby revitalizing the adjacent neighborhoods. Beyond its contribution to hydrological management and in providing amenity and cultural value (6.10), green infrastructure can make a contribution to mitigating climate change and micro-climate impacts in cities and improving comfort conditions the quality of life for their inhabitants in manifold ways as in the example of London’s Green Grid (Box 6.6) and Curitiba’s tree planting and green public spaces (Box 6.11).

WHO (1982) Manual on Environmental Management for Mosquito Control, with Special Emphasis on Malaria Vectors.WHO Offset Publication No. 66, Geneva: World Health Organization summarized in Max Lock Centre (2010) 31 Bigio A G and Hallegatte S (2011) Urban risk management, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction:: Planning, policy synergies and trade-offs in the cities of the developing world, March 1 WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 6.11: Curitiba – pioneering developing world green and sustainable city32 Curitiba in Brazil (city population about 2 million with more than 3 million in the metropolitan area) is regarded as one of the world’s greenest cities and has won many awards for its sustainable urban planning. The city has 16 parks, 14 forests and more than a thousand green public spaces. There is more than 400 sq km of green space with 52m² for every inhabitant. Citizens have been involved in planting more than 1.5 million trees along city highways. A Green Exchange employment programme was set up with low income families living in the favelas exchanging collected for bus tickets and food. Children can exchange reusable waste with school articles, chocolate, toys and tickets to entertainment events. 70% of Curitiba's waste is recycled by its inhabitants. Most famously, Curitiba was the first city in the world to set up a bus rapid transit system, subsequently successfully transferred to Bogota (‘TransMilenio’ system). Curitiba’s public transport system is used by 85% of the population. According to some measures, the city emits 25 percent less carbon per capita than most Brazilian cities. Although car ownership is high the public transportation system carried 70 percent of commuter traffic in the last decade. Now more than 80 cities worldwide have adopted or are in the process of adopting the system, cities as diverse as Los Angles (‘Orange Line’) and Lagos. In East Asia Pacific Seoul, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur have adopted BRT systems. Since the 1970s, with World Bank financial support, Curitiba has working on alternatives to minimize the negative impacts of urbanization on rivers. An example of this was the construction of parks along the rivers with artificial lakes, which retain the water for longer periods of time, minimizing flooding downstream. In 1972, with the main objective of controlling the flooding, river parks were created along the River Barigui (140 Ha) and the River St. Lawrence (20 Ha). These river parks also serve as places of recreation for the population and prevent the illegal occupation on river banks. The principal champion and visionary for Curitiba’s approach to sustainability and resilience was Jaime Lerner, architect and master planner, three-term mayor of Curitiba since 1971 and State Governor from 1994 to 2001. Given Brazil's grim economic situation at that time, Lerner had to think small, cheap and participatory. The strategy was holistic, addressing environmental, social and economic aspects simultaneously and ensuring that scarce infrastructure investment contributed to realizing the vision of urban sustainability. With a budget a fraction the size of an equivalent developed world city, innovative, economical and cost effective measures were taken step-by-step, involving communities and other stakeholders and keeping the process open ended so that they could contribute their own ideas. The bus system, for example, which now encompasses the whole city, was built up over decades in response to the citizens’ use of and response to existing services. Each addition to the system was designed in a modular way to be separate, autonomous but highly interlinked to the existing services. Planned bus interchanges serve as urban and community service centers. The good practice highlighted in the examples highlighted in the section include:  Urban landscape design should form an essential part of urban planning for resilience at the city scale; land use planning should indentify, zone and protect green areas and natural drainage corridors.  Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) should be integrated into urban planning policies to facilitate flood and hydrological management generally.  It should be employed as part of basic environmental management to address public and environmental health issues.  Local government should promote green infrastructure at the city level, including street trees, small green spaces, green walls and roof. It has multiple benefits mitigating climate change and microclimate impacts in cities and improving comfort conditions the quality of life for their inhabitants.

<http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/cases/curitiba-the-green-capital>; <http://www.cbd.int/authorities/casestudy/curitiba.shtml>

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

 Resilience strategies form part of a holistic approach to sustainable urban development.  Building resilience through a green approach requires taking relatively modest, open-ended, cost effective measures that build and relate to on one another in a modular way in response to changing conditions and citizen’s perceptions of their needs.  The planning process should be open-ended and participatory, allowing stakeholders to contribute creatively to the outcomes.

6.7

Ecosystems services Systems thinking permits the environment to be considered as a dynamic and complex functioning whole, where energy, material and information flow among the different elements that compose the system. The ecosystem approach is an extension of this concept. It focuses on the levels of biological organization and encompasses the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment.33 Humans are recognized as an integral component of biological systems and the scale of analysis and action is determined by the problem being addressed. The ecosystem approach can make a valuable contribution to managing disaster risk and mitigating the impacts of disasters.34 It also allows the vital issue of livelihoods to be placed in a systematic framework for considering their sustainable relationship to the environment (see Table 6.2) Table 6.2: Five steps to implementing the Ecosystem Approach35 Step A

Determining the main stakeholders, defining the ecosystem area, and developing the relationship between them

Step B

Characterizing the structure and function of the ecosystem, and setting in place mechanisms to manage and monitor it

Step C

Identifying the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants

Step D

Determining the likely impact of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems

Step E

Deciding on long-term goals, and flexible ways of reaching them

For example, in the context of flood risk reduction it could be a soil micro-pore, a detention basin, an entire floodplain or a mega-watershed. As such, the ecosystem approach represents a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.36 The ecosystem approach has particular importance in contributing to urban resilience through providing a basis for valuing ecosystem services. Chapter 5 shows how the ecosystem approach and the valuation of ecosystem services can be incorporated into urban planning policies in the 15-step physical planning process. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) defines ecosystem services as provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services and examines how changes in ecosystem services influence human wellbeing. Security from disaster is a primary constituent of human wellbeing, in turn intrinsically linked to ecosystem services.37 As an example, the use of green infrastructure within urban environments can reduce exposure of urban residents to flood risk or storm surges whilst also

CBD. (2000) Ecosystem approach. Decision V/6, Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, Kenya, 15 - 26 May 2000. <[online] http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7148> [accessed 2 May 2011] 34 Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Masundire, H., Rizvi A. and Rietbergen S. (eds). (2006) Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters: An integrated approach to disaster risk management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 58pp. 35 Ibid. 36 Shepherd, G. (2004) The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30pp. 37 Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S.H. (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics. 63:616-626; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005a) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

delivering a range of other benefits (See Boxes 6.6, 6.10-12). Some of the regulating services provided by ecosystems, including regulating the impacts of climate change, are shown in Table 6.3. Table 6.3: Ecosystem regulating services38 Climate regulation

Source of and sink for greenhouse gases; influence temperature, precipitation, and other climatic processes

Water regulation

Impeding/regulating hydrological flows to surface water; groundwater recharge/discharge

Water purification and waste treatment

Retention, recovery, and removal of excess nutrients and other pollutants

Erosion regulation

Retention of soils and sediments

Natural hazard regulation

Flood control, storm protection

Pollination

Habitat for pollinators

Box 6.12: Urban park restoration, ecosystem services and flood risk reduction, London, UK39 Mayesbrook Park lies in a densely urban area of East London in the Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Five of its 17 wards are ranked within the 10% most deprived wards in England. The area is characterized by relatively high unemployment and low income. The Mayes Brook, which runs through the Park, is severely degraded, suffering from poor water quality and impoverished biodiversity and places several residential and commercial properties at risk from flooding. A restoration scheme for the park and the brook considered how the physical restoration of the river could not only improve water quality and ecological condition but could provide socio-economic uplift for the local community whilst reducing flood risk and improving resilience to climate change. An assessment of the economic benefits associated with the restoration scheme demonstrated that an investment of £3.84m yielded a lifetime benefit-to-cost ratio of approximately 7:1. Gross annual benefit delivered through the range of ecosystem services is estimated at approximately £880,000. Of this the regulating services, including reduction of flood risk and climate regulation, yielded a gross annual return of approximately £28,000. However, the cultural services, including recreation, social relations and education, return a gross annual value of approximately £820,000 demonstrating how ecosystem restoration for which provides disaster risk reduction can also enhance substantially human wellbeing in the urban environment. Environmental degradation reduces the capacity of ecosystems to meet the needs of people for food and other products resulting in a failure to protect them from hazards and to aid in post-disaster recovery. Urban policies should ensure that ecosystem services, and consequently human well-being, are not compromised. Planning of urban risk reduction projects can integrate ecosystem-based solutions from the outset so that opportunities to optimize the economic benefits associated ecosystem service delivery are not lost. Key lessons from the examples given here are:  Significant cultural services providing socio-economic uplift for an impoverished urban areas can be delivered as a result of reducing exposure to flood hazard;  By setting out to optimize ecosystem services for the benefit of the local community, the economic investment in green infrastructure can deliver significant benefit-to-cost ratios and reduce exposure to urban disasters.  Land-use zonation should be informed by economic assessment of ecosystem services;  There is a clear economic incentive to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005a). A full table of ecosystems services as set out in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is given in Appendix 7… 39 Everard, M., Shuker, L. and Gurnell A. (2011) The Mayes Brook restoration in Mayesbrook Park, East London: an assessment of ecosystem services. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 6.13: Master plan to counter degradation of coastal wetlands in Sri Lanka40 The Muthurajawela Marsh covers some 3,086 hectares in the coastal area close to Colombo, Sri Lanka. More than 300,000 people live in close proximity to the marsh with at least 5,000 people residing within the coastal wetland complex. The location of Muthurajawela Marsh in a rapidly developing urban area makes it an extremely vulnerable ecosystem. Large parts of the marsh system have been altered through drainage, pollution and hydrological modification. Conventional land use planning processes have paid little heed to maintaining green spaces for Sri Lankaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s citydwelling population and have resulted in development decisions at the cost of the few remaining urban and peri-urban conservation zones. As a result of growing concern regarding the degradation of the marsh, the Sri Lankan Government decided to freeze all public and private sector development proposals until an environmentally sound master plan was developed. The plan was published in 1991 resulting in a land use strategy based on dividing the Muthurajawela-Negombo area into various development and conservation zones. Essential to establish a clear rationale for land-use zonation was a credible economic assessment of the various benefits delivered by the marsh. The following analysis demonstrated that the gross annual value of the marsh was in excess of US$8 million per year: Flood attenuation $5,394,556 Industrial wastewater treatment $1,803,444 Agricultural production $336,556 Support to downstream fisheries $222,222 Firewood $88,444 Fishing $69,556 Leisure, recreation and recreation $58,667 Domestic sewage treatment $48,000 Freshwater supplies $42,000 ______________________________

Total annual economic value

$8,072,111

Tools, methods, checklists and information sources 6.8

Methods for valuing ecosystems services Hazard risk assessment of infrastructure investment projects can adopt a systems approach to cost benefit analysis to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services is optimized. The total costs (TC) comprise first order and second order costs. The first order costs are primarily be the cost of restoring damaged or degraded ecosystems to regulate disaster risk (RC), as identified in the Mississippi Delta case study. The second order costs will be the opportunity benefits foregone from alternative use of land (OC), for instance the loss of shrimp farming from the restoration of coastal mangrove systems to provide shoreline protection in Sri Lanka. Thus:

TC = RC + OC Where RC is the ecosystem restoration costs and OC the opportunity costs. As with the costs, total benefits (TB) consist of first and second order benefits. The first order benefits are the avoided damages (AD) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; costs saved through reducing urban disasters. The second order benefits are the co-benefits that may accrue through using the ecosystem approach (COB). As described in the case study of urban flood risk reduction in Mayesbrook Park, London, these co-benefits, or ecosystem services, can be significantly greater than the first order benefits. Thus total benefits (TB) will therefore be:

TB = AD + COB

Emerton, L. and Kekulandala, L.D.C.B. (2002) Assessment of the economic value of Muthurajawela wetland. Occasional paper 4. Colombo: IUCN Sri Lanka Country Office. 28 p.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Where AD is the avoided damages and COB are the co-benefits or wider ecosystem services. The net benefit will be TB â&#x20AC;&#x201C; TC and the higher the positive value the more effective the approach. Often there is a need to balance or trade-off relationships in order to optimize the net benefit. The ecosystem approach provides a framework to consider these trade-offs and to develop urban disaster risk reduction options that also provide many co-benefits. Table 6.4 shows how coral reefs and mangroves provide by regulating ecosystem services that directly reduce disaster risk including protection of beaches and from storm surges and waves and reduction of beach erosion. They also provide a range of co-benefits associated with the wider ecosystem services. Table 6.4: Ecosystem services provided by coral reefs and mangroves41 Ecosystem services

Coral reefs

Mangroves

Regulating

Protection of beaches and coastlines from storm surges and waves Reduction of beach erosion Formation of beaches and islands

Protection of beaches and coastlines from storm surges, waves and floods Reduction of beach and soil erosion Stabilization of land by trapping sediments Water quality maintenance Climate regulation

Provisioning

Subsistence and commercial fisheries Fish and invertebrates for the Ornamental aquarium trade Pharmaceutical products Building materials Jewellery and other decoration

Subsistence and commercial fisheries Aquaculture Honey Fuelwood Building materials Traditional medicines

Cultural

Tourism and recreation Spiritual and aesthetic appreciation

Tourism and recreation Spiritual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sacred sites

Supporting

Cycling of nutrients Nursery habitats

Source: UNEP-WCMC (2006)

Building on the work of the MA and the Stern Review,42 which provided a strong economic argument for action on climate change, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study highlights the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and the implications for human society.43 TEEB adopts a tiered approach to guide policy and decision-makers in appraising the benefits derived from nature and formulating conclusions. Not every step is required in every situation and the approach to the valuation of ecosystem services will depend on the situation. Sometimes it is sufficient to simply recognize that that the environment is performing a provisioning or regulating service or that it possesses a cultural value, such as in the case of a designated protected site. This obviates the need to monetarize that value. As the environment is degraded and ecosystems lost, the market should reflect this. It has been demonstrated that the major benefits flowing from ecosystems, and potentially the key drivers behind

UNEP-WCMC. (2006) In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 33pp. 42 Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 43 TEEB. (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An Interim Report. European Commission, Brussels. [online] <www.teebweb.org> [accessed 2 May 2011] WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific attenuating their rate of degradation were non-marketed externalities.44 Furthermore, the public value of the services provided by unconverted ecosystems, as in the case of undrained wetlands, is often considerably greater than private benefits derived from land use change (in the case of wetlands, drainage and conversion to agriculture).45 The key issue for urban resilience is to ensure economic valuation methods and appropriate tools that accurately estimate the benefits provided by natural capital are applied within the investment decision-making process. Table 6.5: Tiered approach advocated by TEEB46 Steps in approach

Possible approach

1. Identify environmental issues

Identify and assess the full range of ecosystem services affected across different elements of society (and different stakeholders) and at different geographical scales.

2. Recognize value

Consider the full range of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting ecosystem services through completing simple checklists or report cards to assess the relative importance of individual services. Alternatively, elements, such as number of properties protected from flooding or amount of carbon sequestered per annum, can be measured.

3. Demonstrate value

Alternative economic valuation tools reviewed by TEEB can be applied to consider the full cost and benefits of a proposed action. Economic valuation techniques are best applied when assessing the consequences of changes resulting from alternate management choices or investment options.

4. Capture value

Values are captured through incentives and pricing signals. Common techniques include payment for ecosystem services, reforming perverse incentives or subsidies, modifying tax breaks in favor of environmental protection or creating new markets for the provision of environmental products.

5. Find solutions

Solutions should seek to maintain the natural capital required to protect or where possible enhance human well-being based on the information amassed in the preceding steps.

The tiered approach to valuing ecosystem services and the benefits which flow from natural capital as advocated by TEEB can be considered in parallel with the systems thinking embedded in the ecosystem approach. The five steps effectively shadow elements of the different tiers of the TEEB construct. In considering any urban investment: ď&#x201A;§ Stakeholders should be actively engaged to define the ecosystems under consideration, characterize the structure and function of ecosystems and to identify the environmental issues in play. ď&#x201A;§ Value should be recognized, demonstrated and captured in the context of defining the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants, especially where likely impacts are expected. ď&#x201A;§ Solutions should ensure that natural capital is protected and long-term goals are delivered. Such an approach could be integrated into traditional environmental and social impact

Balmford, A, Bruner, A, Cooper, P Costanza, R., Farber, S, Green, R E, Jenkins, M, Jefferiss, P, Jessamy, V, Madden, J et al. (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297:950-953. 45 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA 46 TEEB. (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. <www.teebweb.org> [accessed 2 May 2011] TEEB (2010) WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

assessments to understand more fully the implications of investment in urban infrastructure on the wider ecosystems and the human wellbeing they support. By integrating an awareness of ecosystems into investment decision-making aspects of ecosystem management and climate change adaptation immediately gain prominence within both development planning and disaster risk reduction. These elements have their own sets of stakeholders, goals and objectives. However, the many synergies that exist can deliver more integrated solutions and drive a transformation to sustainable outcomes. Such an ecosystem-based hazard risk reduction draws together the ecosystem management, development planning, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, all of which strive for sustainable development and improved human well-being, into an integrated approach (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Ecosystem-based hazard risk reduction47

Box 6.14: Economic benefits of That Luang Marsh, PDR Laos48 The Vientiane Prefecture contains almost 1,500 km2 of permanent and seasonal waterbodies, floodplains, swamps and marshes, the largest of which is That Luang Marsh. These wetland areas supply a wide range of economically valuable services, including fisheries, farming and natural resource collection activities, flood attenuation, maintenance of water quality and supply, and treatment of domestic, agricultural and industrial wastes.. Situated on the outskirts of Vientiane City, That Luang Marsh provides important resources and agricultural land for local communities both in the city and in the bordering rural areas. It also provides the capital city with considerable flood protection, through the retention of storm run-off generated by the city, and water treatment.

Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Ash, N. (2009) Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security. Revised Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash (2009). 48 Gerrard, P. (2004) Integrating Wetland Ecosystem Values into Urban Planning: The Case of That Luang Marsh,Vientiane, Lao PDR. IUCN â&#x2C6;&#x2019; The World Conservation Union, Asia Regional Environmental Economics Programme and WWF Lao Country Office, Vientiane. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

A study conducted by IUCN and WWF used economic valuation techniques to demonstrate the importance of sustainable management of the wetland areas, and especially their wider importance in addition to flood protection, and the need to incorporate them into urban planning and decisionmaking. Methods included price-based approaches to measure both direct use values (such as paddy rice production), indirect use values (such as flood protection), option values (such as future tourism) and non-use values (including cultural or aesthetic significance). According to the results of the study the goods and services associated with That Luang Marsh are worth just under $US 5 million annually (2004 prices). The direct benefits of the wetland to local people make up 40% of the total value of the wetland, demonstrating the importance of the resource to local people and to the Poverty Eradication Goals of the Government of Lao PDR. The annual value of flood damages avoided in Vientiane by the year 2020 will be $US 2,842,000 or over 50% of the total economic value of the Marsh. The high value of the ecosystem services provided by That Luang Marsh reveal the importance of incorporating an understanding of these services into urban planning and disaster risk reduction strategies. Key lessons learnt from the Cyclone Nagris example (Box 6.?) reflect the principles underpinning the Ecosystem Approach. These include:  Pre-existing environmental degradation worsens the impact of the hazard both through increasing exposure to risk and reducing resilience to recovery;  An integrated approach towards sustainable livelihood development, environmental management and disaster risk reduction is necessary to ensure future resilience;  Alternative livelihoods need to be established to reduce pressure on natural resources and to prevent ecosystem degradation;  An enabling policy and legal environment is required to formulate appropriate policies and laws that: (1) promote environment and livelihoods, (2) improve co-ordination of government policies and (3) enhance community access and control of natural resources.  Improved environmental management and disaster risk reduction will only be future-proofed through raising awareness and capacity building across national and local government and within civil society organizations. It is essential that there is a process in place that allows decisions to be made on robust, reliable and current information The full range of cost-benefits associated with natural or green/blue infrastructure, including restorative measures and measures on a regional scale, need to be properly understood and considered alongside traditional engineered approaches to disaster risk reduction. Investments in sustainable ecosystem management or sound environmental management can offer cost-effective solutions to reducing community vulnerability to disasters. ‘Natural infrastructure’, green infrastructure or buffers are in many cases equally effective in reducing the impact of hazards, and are often less expensive, both in terms of capital and maintenance costs, than human-built infrastructure. Ecosystem protection, even at a distance from urban areas, can improve the resilience of infrastructure upon which cities depend. It has been estimated that investments in preventative measures, including maintaining healthy ecosystems, can be as much as seven times more cost effective than the costs incurred by disasters.49 The restoration of naturally functioning ecosystems can be a cost-effective solution that improves resilience to disasters and secures wider socioeconomic benefits as the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina (Box 6.15) demonstrate.

World Bank. (2004) “Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost”. Press release, March 2, 204. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/ WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 6.15: The economic benefits of restoring the Mississippi River Delta50 Hurricane Katrina struck the Mississippi-Louisiana coastline of the USA including the major city of New Orleans on August 29, 2005. The hurricane sustained winds in excess of 125 mph and generated a storm surge that exceeded 10m in height. The associated flooding was most severe in communities where the levees and floodwalls failed and previous wetland buffers had already been lost. Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc across the Mississippi River Delta, affecting an area of over 90,000 square miles and over two million people. Since the 1930s the lower Mississippi River has been constricted by levees and effectively cut-off from its floodplain. Vast volumes of sediment and trillions of gallons of valuable freshwater have been channeled into deep water off the edge of the continental shelf instead of being allowed to accrete new land within the delta region. It has been estimated that through a combination of subsidence, reduced sediment supply and rising sea levels the Mississippi Delta has lost some 1.2 million acres of land since 1930. Despite human interventions, estimates suggest that the Mississippi River Delta ecosystems provide economically valuable services including hurricane storm protection, water supply, climate stability, food, furs, habitat, waste treatment, and other benefits variously estimated at between $12 billion and $47 billion/year to the American economy. A recent report has described three scenarios: (1) a “do-nothing” approach which will cost at least $41 billion in damages; (2) a “hold the line” scenario avoids the $41 billion, but without generating any additional benefits; and (3) a “sustainable restoration” option, involving large-scale controlled diversions of water and sediment which will reduce the rate of land loss, improve fisheries and protect urban settlements and essential infrastructure by increasing the land available to buffer hurricanes, will avoid $41 billion in losses and secure $21 billion in benefits, providing $62 billion in present value.51 Large diversions of water and sediment from the Mississippi River, including the removal of engineered flood levees, are required to rebuild the Mississippi Delta and secure these economic benefits.

6.9

Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers, and project design and assessment checklist See Table 6.6 and 6.7 below.

6.10 Other checklists and templates Appendix 6.1 includes a checklist that highlights the key ecosystem-based issues which need to be taken into account if greater resilience is to be embedded in decision-making and to ensure that opportunities to optimize investment, improve human well-being and reduce disaster risk are fully realized.

Batker, D., de la Torre, I., Costanza, R., Swedeen, P., Day, J., Boumans, R. and Bagstad, K. (2010) Gaining Ground - Wetlands, Hurricanes and the Economy: The Value of Restoring the Mississippi River Delta. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA.Batker et al. (2010). 51

Estimates of the present value of the benefits from 11 Mississippi Delta ecosystem goods and services are between $330 billion and $1.3 trillion (at a 3.5% discount rate). Batker, et al (2010) WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 6.6: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and checklist for policy makers General good practice and policy recommendations:

National/regional level*

1.1

Urban and environmental planning policies, legislation and regulation are base on a good understanding of the linkages between urban and rural areas.

 Are rural-urban linkages recognized in both environmental management and urban planning policies?

1.2

Work at the appropriate landscape scale or regional context is based on a good understanding of its natural functioning in response to a range of hydro-meteorological conditions.

 Do environmental planning policies/guidance set out the appropriate landscape scale for infrastructure investment?

2.1

Invest in improving the health of natural ecosystem for flood mitigation through an investment in integrated river catchment management

 Do environmental planning policies/guidance address river catchment holistically? Is there national/regional budgetary provision for natural ecosystem management?

2.2

Develop policies to protect existing environmental resources and restore site and wider ecological integrity, structure and function.

 Do environmental planning policies/guidance protect investment from future hazard risk due to environmental degradation and reduce existing degradation?

3.1

Promote use of green and blue infrastructure and environmental buffers to reduce the need for structural measures

 Do environmental and urban planning policies/guidance set out good practice in the design of green and blue infrastructure and environmental buffers, including landscaping interventions to complement the resilience effects produced by nature and existing ecosystems?

4.1

Adopt an integrated approach towards sustainable livelihood development, environmental management and disaster risk reduction to ensure future resilience;

 Do environmental and local economic development planning policies/guidance address sustainable livelihood development including alternative livelihoods to reduce pressure on natural resources and prevent ecosystem degradation?

4.2

Adopt enabling policies and laws that improve co-ordination of government policies and enhance community access and control of natural resources.

 Do environmental and urban planning policies and guidance set out cross cutting measures for and good practice for ensuring community access and control of

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

City level**  Are national/regional policies integrated into local planning policies? Is capacity building necessary? Are measures in place to involve local communities and other stakeholders?

Are national/regional policies integrated into local planning policies? Is capacity building necessary? Are measures in place to involve local communities and other stakeholders?

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

natural resources? 5.1

Promote sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) through environmental and urban planning policies

 Do environmental and urban planning policies/guidance set out good practice requirements for SUDS?

5.2

Promote urban landscape design measures to mitigate impacts of climate change on urban microclimates in combination and to complement non-structural measures.

 Do environmental and urban planning policies/guidance set good practice requirements in urban landscape design for climate change adaptation and mitigating heat island effect?

5.3

Increase investment in the maintenance of environmental infrastructure including drainage canals, drains and infield farm drains to reduce flooding risk.

 Is there national/regional level budgetary provision to support maintenance of environmental infrastructure?

 Are planned maintenance programs and the resources to support these in place for new and existing physical infrastructure? Is capacity building necessary?

6.1

Carry out an economic assessment of ecosystem services to inform land-use zoning and other planning measures.

 Do environmental planning policies/guidance recommend appropriate methods for economic assessment of ecosystem services?

 Do environmental impact studies to incorporate economic assessment of ecosystem services? Are land use planning policies subject to a sustainability appraisal? Is capacity building to develop appropriate technical expertise necessary?

6.2

Aim to optimize ecosystem services for the benefit of local communities

 Do environmental planning policies/guidance set out good practice for optimizing ecosystem services for the benefit of local communities?

 Are national/regional policies integrated into local planning policies? Is capacity building necessary? Are measures in place to involve local communities and other stakeholders?

*Bank Project Management Cycle: PMC1 Country Assistance Strategy

**PMC2 Project Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and approval PMC4 Implementation PMC5 Completion; PMC6 Evaluation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 6.7: Good practice recommendations for urban planning for risk reduction and project design and assessment checklist General good practice and policy recommendations:

Project checklist for task managers:*

1.1

Urban and environmental planning policies, legislation and regulation are base on a good understanding of the linkages between urban and rural areas.

 Is project design is set in the context of rural-urban linkages?

1.2

Work at the appropriate landscape scale or regional context is based on a good understanding of its natural functioning in response to a range of hydro-meteorological conditions.

 Does project design and environmental address appropriate landscape scale?

2.1

Invest in improving the health of natural ecosystem for flood mitigation through an investment in integrated river catchment management

 Is project design set in the context of integrated river catchment management, where relevant, and does it enhance natural ecosystem-based flood mitigation? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

2.2

Develop policies to protect existing environmental resources and restore site and wider ecological integrity, structure and function.

 Does project design address ecological protection and restoration? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

3.1

Promote use of green and blue infrastructure and environmental buffers to reduce the need for structural measures

 Does project design incorporate green and blue infrastructure and environmental buffers measures where appropriate? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

4.1

Adopt an integrated approach towards sustainable livelihood development, environmental management and disaster risk reduction to ensure future resilience;

 Does project design address sustainable livelihood issues? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

4.2

Adopt enabling policies and laws that improve co-ordination of government policies and enhance community access and control of natural resources.

 Does project design address municipal co-ordination and strategies to ensure community access to natural resources? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

5.1

Promote sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) through environmental and urban planning policies

 Does project design to climate-related SUDS measures where appropriate? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

5.2

Promote urban landscape design measures to mitigate impacts of climate change on urban microclimates in combination and to complement non-structural measures.

 Does project design incorporate climate-related urban landscape design where appropriate? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

5.3

Increase investment in the maintenance of environmental infrastructure including drainage canals, drains and infield farm drains to reduce flooding risk.

• Are planned maintenance programs and the resources to support these in place for new and existing physical infrastructure? Is capacity building necessary?

6.1

Carry out an economic assessment of ecosystem services to inform land-use zoning and other planning measures.

 Has an economic assessment of ecosystem services affected by infrastructure investment been carried out as part of environmental impact assessment? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

6.2

Aim to optimize ecosystem services for the benefit of local communities

 Does project design address ecosystem services for local communities? Are there indicators for monitoring performance?

*PMC2 Project Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and approval PMC4 Implementation PMC5 Completion; PMC6 Evaluation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Structural design issues Both developed and developing countries are seeking to promote communities that are resilient to natural hazards, and both are struggling to turn good theory into practical action. In building resilient communities it is however clear that engineered structural measures will continue to play a significant role; increasingly working alongside a wide range of nonstructural measures and instruments.1 This chapter focuses on how to promote resilience in planning engineering interventions as part of a wider integrated approach to the management of natural hazards. Delivering resilient infrastructure is much more than simply reducing the chance of damage through the provision of ‘strong’ structures but rather reflects an approach to throughout the design process that is inherently risk based, focuses effort to reduce risk effectively and efficiently in the context of uncertainty, adopts a whole systems approach and places resilience at the heart of the risk management process.

Overview 7.1

Key considerations to promote resilience in on-the-ground structural actions As yet no blueprint is available as to what constitutes resilient design. A common understanding is however starting to emerge.2 This acknowledges resilient design as a process that, as part of a wider portfolio of responses, fosters innovative approaches to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures that: 

Continues to function when exposed to natural hazardous events that exceed design levels (for example a levee will be overtopped but should not collapse or breach without warning).



Can rapidly recover from a disruptive event (supporting the rapid return to normality avoiding the need for complex plant, highly specialist skills or difficult to source materials).



Continues to operate during extreme events (for example, critical infrastructure such as pumping stations, bridges, gates etc must continue to operate on demand)



Adopts principles of sustainability and utilizes sustainable materials and processes.



Takes a long term view avoiding short-termism. The planning and implementation of flood risk strategies, for example, is often bias towards quick wins. More progressive strategies that embed a longer term and progressive management can often be difficult to develop and implement.



Maximizes the use of the sunk investments. Much of the developed world, and developing world, has significant sums already invested in an aging infrastructure portfolio. Incorporating and adapting this existing infrastructure in sustainable future plans can present a difficult challenge.

Box 7.1: Emerging guidance – USA Disaster Resilient Design Expert Group3 The Disasters Roundtable of the National Academies’ National Research Council and the National Academy of Environmental Design hosted a workshop, ‘Disaster Resilient Design’ on October 26, 2010. Bringing together thought-leaders and experts in the design and disaster communities, this workshop identified ways to integrate principles of sustainability and disaster resilience in building,

Evans, E, Ashley, R, Hall, J, Penning-Rowsell, E, Saul, A, Sayers, et al. (2004). Foresight Future Flooding, Scientific Summary: Volume 2: Managing future risks. Office of Science and Technology, London. Sayers, P, Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, , Shen, F, Wen, K., Chen, , et al. (2011). Flood Risk Management : A strategic approach - Consultation Draft. Publication of the WWF and General Institute of Water Design and Planning (GIWP) China. 2 For example, see US National Institute of Building Sciences; Bosher et al 2007 3 http://dels-old.nas.edu/dr/f30.shtml WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

site, and community planning and design. Disaster resilient design embodies a broad range of ideas and specifications that can include site planning and building codes, sustainability and green design principles, pre-event plans for risk reduction and mitigation, and post-event retrofit, reconstruction, and resettlement considerations. The workshop drew upon examples from research, planning, and design studio work to address how building, site, and regional plans can mitigate exposure to risk and effects of disasters to:  Identify areas of intersection between sustainability and disaster resilience  Identify ways to integrate green design and disaster resilience principles in the United States and in international arenas  Identify new models for disaster resilient design research and education  Raise awareness, facilitate dialogue, and create collaboration among experts in the disasters and environmental design communities. Emerging challenges continue to persist, including to how best to:  Integrate green design and disaster resilience into physical design  Identify new models that integrate disaster resilient design research and education

7.2

Design and strategy development – a management philosophy of risk Resilience design adopts a management philosophy of risk. This has significant implications for the way in which engineered infrastructure as conceived and designed, abandoning the notion of a ‘design’ event but promoting an understanding the performance and risks across a range of events to ensure designs work across a range of loading conditions. Some of the most important considerations in providing resilience as part of the design/strategy development process in relation to flood risk are shown in Figure 7.1. These are discussed in further, as they relate to the wider context of natural hazards in the following sections.

Figure 7.1: The nine ’golden rules’ of good flood risk management4

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 7.2: Traditional versus risk based design5 Within a traditional engineering / safety standards based approach the decision making procedure is simple and follows the along the lines of:6 1. Establishing the appropriate standard of defense5 (e.g. the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;100-year return periodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; river level) based either the land use of the are protected, reasons of uniformity or tradition 2. Estimating the design load, such as the water level or wave height with the specified return period 3. Designing the structures to withstand that load (crest level, structural strength) 4. Incorporating safety factors, such as freeboard allowances, to account for local uncertainties using local guides. 5. Incorporating deterministic warning systems - based on comparing in river / or at sea forecasts with levels that would trigger action for the warned area. Such an approach has a number of shortcomings. In particular, it also relies upon defining an acceptable engineering/safety standard, a difficult task that has often been attempted but never solved. Typically, such efforts have tried to draw analogies with other risks individuals and societies accept in an attempt to set acceptable risk levels for flooding, for example. Although such approaches have been successfully applied to regulated industries in the developed world (for example, HSE 2001) they have offered limited utility in the context of a modern risk approach where resources are accepted as finite and requiring prioritization. This is because an engineering standards approach leads to: (i) Inequality, protecting some and not others, and (ii) Inefficiency of spend â&#x20AC;&#x201C; by providing standards above the minimum for economic efficiency, the benefits accrued are usually less than if the additional money had been spent elsewhere (this typically occurs because the costs of reducing risk tend to increase much more quickly than the damages decrease). A modern risk management decision process proceeds as an iterative process and along the lines of: 1. Identifying a range of potential strategies (strategic alternatives - including a portfolio of structural and non-structural responses) and possible future scenarios (reflecting plausible change in climate, demographic, funding etc). 2. Evaluating the performance of each strategic alternative against multi-criteria representing societal preferences for economic efficiency, ecosystem benefits and social equality. 3. Considering investing proportionately greater resources to protect the vulnerable and deliver ecosystem benefits. 4. Identifying a preferred strategy - then continue to monitor and adapt the strategy as the reality of the future becomes known. This process raises the question as to how much additional investment should be provided above a minimum level. Determining how best to allocate resources is a debate in many countries as they transition from engineering standards to risk approaches and there is no single answer, but and should be clearly addressed with the funders policy framework.

7.3

Systems-based principles for structural design Design for comprehensiveness: addressing all sources of hazard Natural hazards exist in various forms, occasionally acting independently but more often in combination (for example, earthquake and tsunami, flash floods and mudflows, heat and drought). The identification of the different sources of hazards faced and an understanding of where (and

Sayers, P., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Shen, F., Wen, K., Chen, Y., et al. (2011). Flood Risk Management : A strategic approach - Consultation Draft. Publication of the WWF and General Institute of Water Design and Planning (GIWP) China. 6 Hall and Penning-Rowsell, 2011 WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

potentially when) they are more likely to occur and the associated severity is a crucial first step in promoting resilience. In practice this means: 

Considering the joint extreme – How likely is the structure to experience multiple hazards simultaneously? For example, storm surge and local rainfall (as associated with typhoon) or earthquake loading (and liquefaction of its foundations) and tsunami wave loading (e.g. as experienced by sea defenses along the coast of Japan, 2011). Is a reservoir more likely to experience an earthquake when full?



Considering the spatial coherence of the hazards – How widespread is a single event likely to be? What is the chance of the hazard influencing the whole basin or country (as in the recent floods in Pakistan) or will it be highly localized (associated with a thunder storm induced mudslide or flash flood)?



Considering the temporal coherence – Are certain sequences of events more or less critical than larger single events? For example, would exposure to a series of level 6.0 earthquakes in succession be more or less critical than a single larger event? If so, what is the chance of such an event? Other examples of the importance of temporal sequencing within the hazard include (i) the performance of reservoirs, and their ability to deliver water resources and flood protection, is fundamentally concerned with the temporal sequence of rainfall events, (ii) the protection afforded by natural flood defenses, such as dunes and wetlands, can be influenced by hazard arrival sequence, for example a relatively modest storm acting to denude a beach of sediment can significant reduce the performance of the beach in the short term.



Designing for performance across a wide range of loading conditions – Traditionally engineers have considered a single or a limited number of extreme design events. Resilient design requires consideration of a range of loading conditions and loading combinations; from the more frequently occurring to the more extreme (above design loads).

Whole system behavior An appropriate understanding of the whole risk system is increasingly recognized as a fundamental building block of good risk management.7 This should be at a range of scales (from national to city to local in a way that reflects potential future change (for example, climate and demographic change) as well as the potential management responses (both structural and non-structural). As systems become increasing complex the need to provide a structured framework of reference becomes increasingly important. The so-called ‘source-pathway-receptor’ framework has been successfully used to provide this frame of reference. An example of the source-pathway-receptor framework applied to flood management is shown in Figure 7.2. Spatial and temporal interactions between sources, pathways and receptors can also be important. For example, it is well recognized that construction of flood defenses upstream may increase water levels downstream. Similarly, structures that intentionally, or unintentionally, trap sediment can have profound implications further afield. Whole system models (that represent all the spatial and temporal interactions) are starting to emerge (for example in the UK8 and US9). Scientific understanding of such interactions, and how they change over long time scales, remains limited however and expert simplification is required for practical application. Using a whole systems behavior approach involves: 

Designing to improve the performance of the infrastructure asset system as a whole – Providing protection from hazards through infrastructural responses is seldom achieved through a single structure, but typically requires a system of assets to be provided and maintained. Understanding how the structures operate as a system to

See for example Sayers, P et al. (2002). Evans, E, Ashley, R, Hall, J, Penning-Rowsell, E, Saul, A, Sayers, P, et al. (2004). Foresight Future Flooding, Scientific Summary: Volume 2: Managing future risks. Office of Science and Technology, London. 9 Schultz, M T, Durden, S E, Sayers, P, Gouldby, B P, Simm, J D, Curtis, W R, et al. (2011). Planning Regional Flood Foresight Studies. . Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer). 8

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

provide protection, and which are the most critical, is an important prerequisite to understanding how to manage risk and where to invest.  Designing for whole life performance – Awareness not only refers to the understanding of the hazard by individuals or designers and the associated cascade of impacts but how the structures, once constructed, will be maintained and ultimately removed. Resilient design therefore takes a whole life view, factoring in consideration of deterioration, or emergent faults within the construction, and how these repairs will be managed throughout the life of the structure. Maintenance has often been the Achilles heel of infrastructure system. This reflects the limited resources of central administrations to provide continued and adequate inspection, for example of flood levees. Recruiting and training communities to take ownership of this process is starting to gather pace, supporting profession as by routinely inspecting structures and report defeats/deterioration is starting to emerge as a core component of maintaining structures. To be effective this demands an appropriate understanding within the community and an effective means of reporting and action.

Figure 7.2: A structured framework of whole system thinking based on understanding the sources, pathways and receptors of risk10  Considering the cascade of risks from primary, secondary and tertiary risk – Numerous natural hazard events have highlighted the highly interconnected and mutually dependent nature of infrastructure (Figure 7.3). Within this context of a highly interdependent system, what happens to one infrastructure, such as a water or power supply for example, can directly and indirectly cascade risk and often escalate the risk, across large geographic regions and send ripples throughout the national and global economy.11 Without an understanding of these critical

10 11

Sayers, et al., 2011 adapted from Evans et al (2004). Rinaldi et al, 2001

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

connections, communities, nations and potentially multiple nations can be left exposed to risks that are disproportionate to the severity of the initial natural hazard event. Three broad classes of infrastructure interactions can be described (based on Little 2002) and each must be considered when establishing a system understanding:12 -

Cascading risk – a disruption in one infrastructure causes a disruption in a second infrastructure

Escalating risk – a disruption in one infrastructure exacerbates an independent disruption of a second infrastructure (for example, the time for recovery or restoration of an infrastructure increases because another infrastructure is not available)

Coherent risks – a disruption of two or more infrastructures at the same time because of a common cause (for example, directly effected by initiating natural disaster for example or indirectly where reliant on the same, failed, supply chain)

Figure 7.3: Dimensions for describing infrastructure interdependencies13 Avoiding perverse consequences and a false sense of security – Expertise, technology and the more effective exercise of government and regulations can achieve a great deal but ultimately resilience depends on the awareness and behavior of people. An over reliance on top down, technical solutions relying on the quantification of problems without recognizing the limits of science can create a false sense of security with perverse consequences (see Box 7.3). Early warning systems, such as those now being installed in coastal areas vulnerable to tsunamis, may be geared towards creating a ‘fail-safe’ situation, giving rise to frequent false alarms which in turn adds to the false sense of security of accepted communities and, if not carefully managed, the tendency to regard any alarm as a false one. Structural measures can sometimes create and incentivize unforeseen risks, for example building on the land between levees.

Little, R. (2002). Toward More Robust Infrastructure: Observations on Improving the Resilience and Reliability of Critical Systems. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03). 13 Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001). Critical infrastructure independencies - Identifying, understanding and analysing. IEEE Control Systems Magazine. December. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 7.3: The challenges of tsunami early warning systems in Japan14 Japan started operation of its tsunami early-warning system in 2006. Unfortunately, in the case of the March 2011 earthquake, the warning for the east coast low-lying costal and inlet towns was for a 2m to 3m high wave. In the event, this was a huge underestimate and the 10m high sea walls protecting some of these towns were found to be totally inadequate. These apparently substantial sea defenses provided a false sense of security that resulted in people delaying evacuating to higher ground resulting in a larger loss of life. Despite advances made in early warning systems, coastal communities still face challenges in responding to a tsunami that arrives in less than an hour after the triggering event. Where the source is close to shore and only minutes are available, the population needs to respond to natural cues such as ground shaking from the tsunami-triggering earthquake and evacuate even without official warnings. If the tsunami takes more than an hour or two to reach a coast, technological tsunami detection and forecasting can give advance warning for evacuation of coastal areas but seamless coordination between Tsunami Warning Centers and clear communications to local officials and the public is necessary. Avoiding perverse consequences required a combination of the availability of better information and more awareness and self-preparedness on the part of communities. To minimize future losses from tsunamis in vulnerable countries and cities, a broad spectrum of policy measures is required, including:15 

Urban tsunami risk assessments similar to urban seismic hazard maps that focus on vulnerable communities occupying low-lying costal regions including inlets where funneling is a risk. The assessments should include knowledge of tsunami sources, high-quality bathymetric and topographic data and inundation modeling;



Detection and forecasting and warning centre operations;



Government coordination,



Periodic and comprehensive vulnerability assessments are required that inventory the number, type, awareness, levels of preparedness, and evacuation potential of populations in tsunami-prone areas;



Public education programs to create a ‘culture of safety’.

‘Sustained efforts in all these areas will be needed for communities to prepare for an event that may occur years to decades in the future but affords only minutes or hours for people to respond.’16

7.4

Managing uncertainty – building resilience and adaptive capacity Uncertainty as what to do is natural. Uncertainty is pervasive within the evidence on risk, including the data and models used, but also profound uncertainties in how change (climate, demographics etc) will influence the future (Figure 7.4).

Keane, W (2011) Catastrophes – ‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best’. RICS Disaster Management Commission Information Paper, London: RICS 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Figure 7.4: Uncertainty increases with time reflecting the potential future change including climate, demographics, societal preferences, structure condition17 Looking beyond historical precedence:18 Lack of imagination in describing the possible future change can condition actions based on current knowledge and experience but there is no certainty about what the future holds. It is widely accepted that the assumption of climate stationarity is ‘dead’.19 Climate and demographic change through to changes in the condition of structures all mean that planning processes that focus on a future that resembles the present are no longer acceptable. This presents specific challenges for the design process, in particular how to deal with the future uncertainty and what degree of precaution is appropriate. To address these severe uncertainties, modern risk management takes place as a continuous process of acting, monitoring, reviewing and adapting. This process of adaptive management is in stark contrast to a traditional defense strategy that would typically rely upon implementing a single program of works optimized for a single future and recognizes a number of challenges outlined below. In particular when seeking to address such certainty a number of important principles must be referenced, including: 

Adopting an iterative and adaptive approach recognizing that decisions must be made with imperfect knowledge – The search for perfect knowledge, (data, information and models with which to conduct analyses) should not be a reason to delay moving to the development of options and implementation risk management activities. This risk management process should be iterative and adaptive, taking in account better information as it is developed but not waiting for conceivably

Sayers, P., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Shen, F., Wen, K., Chen, Y., et al. (2011). Flood Risk Management : A strategic approach - Consultation Draft. Publication of the WWF and General Institute of Water Design and Planning (GIWP) China. 18 Sayers, P., & Meadowcroft, I. (2005). RASP - A hierarchy of risk-based methods and their application. . Proceedings of the 40th Defra Conf. of River and Coastal Management. . 19 Milly, P, Betancourt, J, Fallkenmark, Hirsch, Kundzewicz, Lettenmaier, et al. (2008). Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, 319, p 573-574, DOI: 10.1126/science.1151915. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

unattainable information before proceeding to the next step. The uncertainty in the information should be explicit and choices that are robust to that uncertainty selected. This process will always be in motion. 

Looking for robust and imaginative solutions that perform well in multi-plausible futures. To be meaningful all plausible futures and possible strategies must be tested. A wide range of sources for developing multiple scenarios should be considered.20 If judgments are made too early as to the most likely strategic preference or possible future can precondition the answer in an undesirable and sub-optimal manner. Conversely over complication must be avoided, including unnecessary detail or very localized options. Engineers need to be brave enough to propose new or radical solutions. Land banking, integrated solutions (e.g. energy generation and flood defense, habitat creation and flood management etc), urban blue highways as well as ring dykes.



Planning for exceedence – Absolute protection is not possible. There will always be a bigger hazard event – flood, earthquake drought. Engineering design standards, however high they are set, will be exceeded. Engineered structure may also fail (breach, fail to close). Non-structural measures such as early warning systems or evacuation plans taken to mitigate flood consequences also are susceptible to failure. Through an acceptance that failure is inevitable a focus is placed upon building in resilience into all aspects of the planning process (including urban development planning, flood control structures, warning systems, building codes).



Designing for residual risk – Structural interventions do not eliminate risk. For decades public officials have been comfortable with setting standards such as the 100year flood without fully understanding what risk reduction such a standard provided. As risk-informed resilient design becomes mainstream, public officials as well as businesses and private citizens will have to determine what is the level of residual risk they are willing to manage with non-structural measures. Exactly how this level of risk will be determined in different setting and cultures (and by whom) remains an open question but is one that must be addressed to guide designs.



Designing in redundancy – Where safety is of critical importance, engineers have long practiced the principle of designing in redundancy to provide backup if frontline systems fail. However, with the growing recognition of the importance of uncertainty and inter-relatedness that comes from a systems perspective, the redundancy principle takes on growing significance. In developing an understanding of critical interactions and interdependencies (for example, where risks are cascaded through primary, secondary and tertiary connections) appropriate levels of redundancy of service can be utilized to promote resilience (for example, utilizing multiple power suppliers from independent sources). Care should be taken, however to avoid creating a false sense of security (see previously).



Implementing a portfolio of responses – Instead of relying on a single measure, integrated management of hazard risk involves consideration of the widest possible set of management actions. This includes measures to reduce the probability and measures to reduce consequences (exposure and vulnerability). These are implemented in such a way to assist in social justice, and socio-economic and environmental gain.

See Section 8.11. See also the participatory scenario discovery approach developed at the Rand Frederick S Pardee Center: Bryant B P and Lempert R J (2010) Thinking inside the box: A participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery, Technological Forecasting and Social Change Volume 77, Issue 1, January, pp 34-49

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 7.1: The recognition of uncertainty and its impact on strategy development – replacing a linear development model with an adaptive model of strategy21 Stages of strategy development

Adaptive (uncertain) model of Traditional (certain) model of strategy strategy development and decision development and decision making making

Deciding what to do

Pre-defined system of goals, objectives and desired outcomes. Defined set of activities and resource demands.

Deciding how to do it

Understanding the external and internal influences

Sequential process of planning, programming and implementation. Top-down strategy development.

Stable system of decision-making. Predictable (deterministic) future change – climate, demographics, deterioration, preferences etc.

Emerging pattern of goals, objectives and desired outcomes. Flexible configuration of resources and priorities. Continuous alignment of plans, programs and implementation activities with the changing world. Continuous reconciliation of the bottom-up initiatives and top-down strategies.

Changing decision processes and priorities. Unknown future change - climate, demographics, deterioration, preferences etc.

Policies and Practice 7.5

A framework of common themes for practice To translate this understanding into practical actions requires more specific detail to be developed and a number of projects have attempted to provide this guidance in recent years. Many focus on the five common themes of: 22 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Awareness of risks posed Avoidance of hazard Alleviation of the potential damages Assistance to the process of recovery Strategy and capacity to promote (and force) resilient design

The chapter is structured around each of the stages that are discussed in more detail below.

7.6

Awareness of risks poised This corresponds to stage 1 in the Urban Resilience Spiral (Chapter 2) – ‘Identification and assessment of environmental hazard risks to urban areas’. However, resilient risk-based design requires a much richer understanding of both the risks poised and the interactions between

21 22

Sayers et al (2011) cf. Hutter and McFadden (2009) Adapted from INTERREG EC Flood Resilient Cities. (n.d.). From http://www.floodresiliencity.eu.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

infrastructural systems than has been the case until now. The Taihu Basin Foresight project (Box 7.4) involved a complete ‘end-to-end’ flood risk analysis, taking on board climate change and its interaction with socio-economic factors, and adopting a systems view to review the flood and water regulation system over the long term. This type of study may be essential to developing long-term management policies for mainstreaming resilience. Box 7.4: Taihu Basin, China – Foresight Project: understanding the whole system and multiple hazards23 The Taihu Basin is located in the delta region of the Yangtze River in East China with total area of 36,895 km2 (Figure below). The Basin is an important region for the social and economic development of China. Although its area is only 0.4% of the national territory, the population of 36.8 million and the GDP of 1890 billion Yuan in 2003, represent about 3% and 13% of the nation’s totals respectively. It is one of the regions with the most rapid social and economic development in China today and contains one of its largest concentrations of urban population including the cities of Shanghai and Hangzhou. The Basin lies in the sub-tropical zone and has a monsoon climate with an average annual precipitation of 1177mm, concentrated in summer. Plain areas cover about 80% of the basin with elevations 3-4m above mean sea level, which is 2-3m lower than the highest water level at the river mouth of the Yangtze, and 5-6m lower than the highest tide in Hangzhou Bay. Since it is so flat with slow flow velocities and a drainage system blocked by high tide, the area is very prone to river flooding, storm surges and internal floods caused by local heavy rainfall. During the 1991 flood, the water level of the Tai Lake reached a historical record. Heavy loss of life and damage to property resulted. Following this flood eleven key projects for flood control were constructed, establishing a framework for flood control in the basin, retarding and storing floodwater in the Tai Lake, and draining it northward to the Yangtze, southward to Hangzhou Bay and eastward to the East China Sea. As the basin develops and the climate changes, the flood and water regulation system was reexamined, taking a long term, whole system view. The Taihu Basin Foresight project involved a complete ‘end-to-end’ flood risk analysis, from the generation of climate and socio-economic scenarios, through hydrological, hydraulic and damage modeling to a final GIS system, the Taihu Basin Risk Assessment System (TBRAS). The TBRAS enabled all sources of the flood hazard to be simulated and a comprehensive view of the flood risk to be established as a precursor to aiding the development of resilience long-term management policies. The concepts within this analysis highlight the importance of formally adopting a whole system and longer-term view, enabling the status quo to be challenged and the freedom to develop innovate strategies – a lesson equally applicable from local and national scales decisions.

Evans, E., Surendran, S., Hall, J., Lamb, R., Penning-Rowsell, E., Reynard, N., et al. (2010). Broad scale modelling and scenario analysis for long term large scale planning - Knowledge Transfer from Chinese Flood Foresight Project. Environment Agency, England and Wales. Project No.SC090034; see also <http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/geography/foresightchina/index.html> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Conceptual model of the interaction between climatic and socio-economic factors driving future flood risk in the Taihu Basin.

7.7

Avoidance of hazard This corresponds to stage 2 in the Urban Resilience Spiral (Chapter 2) – ‘risk reduction’. The most reliable means of improving resilience is to avoid development in an area subject to hazards. This is, of course, very easy to say but often very difficult (if not impossible) to do (due to pre-existing infrastructure, livelihoods, communities etc). Good spatial planning can act to reduce risk through: 

Avoidance – Through spatial planning and flood zoning (regulations in US/Europe restrict development, not always entirely successfully!)



Resistance measures – Buildings designed to resist the hazard, for example prevent flood water entering



Resilience measures – Buildings designed to be easily reinstated, for example allowing flood water to enter but minimize the resulting damage and promote fast drying or, in the case of tsunamis and tidal waves to permit the wave to pass through rather than destroy the building; cleaning to promote recovery of the buildings’ use and avoid lasting damage



Repairability – Buildings designed to be easily repaired or affected items easily replaced (various documents exist covering good practice during the reconstruction process24 through to specific protection of critical installations (water distribution sites, hospitals).25

It is the first of these that is the main concern of planners (see Chapter 5) and the others are concerned with building regulations (see Chapter 4) and structural designs. Some of the most important issues associated with avoidance and planning from a risk-informed structural design viewpoint are discussed below.

World Bank. (2008). Overall Reconstruction: Design, Implementation and Management. World Bank Good Practice Notes. 25 CIRIA. (2010). Flood resilience and resistance for critical infrastructure. CIRIA.. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Development zoning Hazard ‘zoning’ is widely used to divide areas into different hazard zones, and define the types of development and land use that are suitable in each zone. The purpose of flood zoning, for example, is to prevent inappropriate development by only allowing certain types of development and land use in areas where the flood hazard is highest. Flood zoning relies first on a statement of the flood conditions that are considered unacceptable for particular uses of the floodplain, for example: 

Development in areas near the river where flow velocities are high should be restricted to uses where no buildings are permitted, for example only recreational areas are allowed;



Residential buildings should not be permitted within the unprotected 1 in 100 year floodplain;



Hospitals and other highly vulnerable buildings should not be permitted within the unprotected 1 in 1000-year floodplain.

Flood zoning is a process that is well embedded some (largely developed) countries but is emerging worldwide. Where it is not possible to avoid new development in the floodplain, planning policies can be introduced that restrict the vulnerability of new development to flooding. Such policies might require: 

Living accommodation in houses to be above flood level.



Floating houses



Buildings to be constructed using flood resilient materials and techniques so that the damage that could occur during a flood is minimized.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 7.5: Development control policy in Cape Town, South Africa26 A key aspect of minimizing risk is to avoid exposure to the hazard. Flood zoning and development control is perhaps the most effective of such measures. The case study below highlights the policy adopted in South Africa as an example of good practice as it differentiates the potential for development on the floodplain based on the potential hazard. The key features of the policy are as follows:  The floodplain is defined as the area susceptible to inundation by the 1 in 50 year flood;  The flood fringe is defined as the area between 1 in 50 year and 1 in 100 year flood envelope. Most development types are permissible in this zone with limited requirements or conditions;  The high hazard zone is defined as the area where flow depths exceed 0.5 m or local flow velocities exceed 2 m/s;  Most types of development are not permitted in the high hazard zone;  Ground floor levels of non-habitable structures should be above the 1 in 20 year flood level and where feasible above the 1 in 50 year flood level;  Ground levels of habitable buildings should be above the 1 in 100 year level;  Access routes to habitable buildings should be at least above the 1 in 50 year flood level and where feasible above the 1 in 100 year level.

Quantified, probabilistic assessment of risk is often possible (e.g. defining river flood plain levels of the basis of regular and periodic flooding; defining areas of earthquake risk in broad regional or national terms according to known geological conditions). Development planning micro zones can be delineated in cities on the basis of urban seismic hazard maps that take into account local topographical and soil conditions and address ground failure hazards such as liquefaction and earthquake-triggered landslides (see Box 7.5 and Box 6… which covers micro-zonation and development planning in Istanbul) However, major uncertainties remain that limit the usefulness of hazard risk mapping upon which development zoning for risk reduction is based. This is particularly the case with seismic risk where the factors at work, though reasonably well understood in relation to the dynamics of plate tectonics, are particularly complex and subject to major information gaps.27

Source: City of Cape Town. (2002). Policy for development control near watercourses. City of Cape Town, Development service. 27 Keane, W (2011) Catastrophes – ‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best’. RICS Disaster Management Commission Information Paper, London: RICS. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Exactly where and when and major geophysical and some hydro-meteorological hazards are threatened is seldom known much in advance of their occurrence, although early warning systems can help mitigate their impacts. Historical perspective is used to determine the average frequency of major events but this can be misleading and induce a false sense of security. The city of Oxford in the UK, for example, recently experienced two ’40-year’ floods within the space of a few year leading a local member of parliament to complain: ‘Why did the Government and the Environment Agency get that prediction wrong? These floods are not 1 in 40 year occurrences, since this has now happened three years in eight.’28 Events with a high degree of uncertainly like the ‘1000-year’ Richter scale 9 earthquake in North Eastern Japan are both very unlikely and bring catastrophic consequences that are very difficult to plan for. The toll of casualties would have been far higher without the high level of investment in risk reduction and disaster preparedness in Japan. At a certain level, however, it is simply not possible to invest enough to eliminate all risk, not matter how rich a country is, and hence there is a cut off in terms of the risk protection that can be offered. Box 7.6: Urban seismic hazard maps: a response to recent damaging earthquakes29 Catastrophic losses from strong ground shaking in the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Kobe earthquakes reinforced the need seismic hazard maps for metropolitan areas in the US and Japan. National seismic hazard maps show the potential for damaging earthquakes on a broad scale but do not take into account local and regional geological structures and soil conditions. These may amplify or dampen the ground shaking which, along with resulting tsunamis, is the most damaging effect of an earthquake. ‘An urban earthquake hazard map (or urban earthquake shaking map) indicates areas where potential earthquake shaking is expected to be relatively weaker or stronger. They are prepared using the draft 1:100,000 scale geological map for the urban areas of interest, geological data from borehole logs, and micro tremor data from recordings of low level ‘background’ ground vibrations. Urban assessments reflect local conditions and also address ground failure hazards such as liquefaction and earthquake-triggered landslides. Poor subsoil can affect the safety of buildings even without an earthquake and where there is exposure to earthquake shaking it takes on considerable importance. Steep topography, in particular if associated with soft subsoil, will tend to increase damage directly and indirectly. Some slopes may be so unstable (in particular when wet) that they are just waiting to fail at the first earthquake.’ Earthquake hazard can vary considerably across a city because of local site geology. Ground shaking impacts can vary by a factor of two or more depending on ground conditions. This effect has been responsible for localized damage in many earthquakes, including the 1995 Kobe earthquake and the April 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In Christchurch, the earthquake was particularly close to the surface leading to exceptionally high peak ground acceleration (PGA) and resulting ground shaking for an earthquake that measured ‘only’ 6.3 on the Richter scale. The ground acceleration readings were more than even many modern buildings are designed to withstand accounting for the damage to some modern buildings built to seismic standards in the city center. The eastern suburbs of the city were badly affected by liquefaction of soft soils that also led to flooding through rising groundwater. Some of the affected population may need to be moved to safer territory. The aim of the urban seismic mapping is to help identify communities at risk and the resilience within the community in surviving an earthquake. Once determined, it is possible to address mitigation alternatives available to meet the desired performance levels. Specifically, it is necessary for a community to: 1. Estimate the risk of an earthquake in terms of the location and forces that are expected to impact the community. 2. Determine the ability of the built environment and human systems to withstand the forces. 3. Define the interventions that will lead to the desired level of community resilience.

Oxford floods deepen as more rain is forecast, Daily Telegraph 26 July 2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558537/Oxford-floods-deepen-as-more-rain-is-forecast.html> 29 Keane, W (2011) Catastrophes – ‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best’. RICS Disaster Management Commission Information Paper, London: RICS. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

4. Develop collaborative mechanisms to engage stakeholder participation in the policy adoption and implementation process. Location and protection of critical infrastructure Chapter 5 defines and sets out the general urban planning requirements for critical infrastructure. As shown within the Asian tsunami of December 2004 and again recently in Japan, critical infrastructure is often located for convenience in terms of the community it serves rather than the based on consideration of it resilience to hazards. For example, the hospital in Gaul, Sri Lanka was overwhelmed by the Asian tsunami and out of action when needed most. Similarly in the recent floods in Pakistan 2010 we have seen the impact of the floods exacerbated by inundation of critical power and supply infrastructure, as well as most recently in the wake of the tsunami in Japan (2011) and the loss of cooling water pump capacity to the Fukushima Nuclear Plan. Avoiding these kinds of impacts is relatively straightforward from a technical design prospective with various means of providing local protection available and improved building codes, both new and retrofit. The importance of good design codes is repeatedly seen, most starkly in the aftermath of the earthquake in New Zealand, with well designed and constructed building suffering much more limited damage. The greater challenge is that it requires forethought and embedding a consideration of natural hazards into the development of relevant spatial plans (a task that requires significant engagement with the local planning authorities), building design codes, materials and workmanship specifications. Temporary and demountable defenses are now recognized as a viable and effective means of protecting critical infrastructure from flood hazards, potentially avoiding larger scale more expensive interventions. To be deployed successfully adequate forecasting and warning services must also be in place.

Figure 7.5: Numerous public and administrative buildings collapsed following the earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti in 200 making coordination of the recovery effort extremely difficult30

7.8

Alleviation of the potential damages When appropriately used, the primary role of structural responses is to protect people, economics and the environment (where appropriate) from harm. Within this report no attempt is made to repeat the basic engineering design methods to be found in many engineering guides, but rather focus on the aspects of the design process that build in resilience, namely:

Keene, B. (2011). Impact of Natural Disasters on the Built Environment. Clarke Bond.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Implementing a portfolio response Modern hazard and risk management recognizes that there is seldom a single solution to managing risk. Instead, portfolios of risk management measures and instruments are utilized. Such portfolios include â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;hardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; structural measures (such as construction of flood dikes) alongside non-structural measures (such as wetland creation and improved flood warnings) and instruments (such land use planning, insurance and funding incentives), and are assembled to reduce risk in an efficient and sustainable way. The specific mix of responses will be a function of particular localities and will continue to be adapted as knowledge is acquired and the reality of the future becomes known. In flood risk management in particular, implementing a portfolio of actions to reduce flood risk has continued to gather pace and is now recognized as a pre-requisite for effective and efficient flood risk management.31 Delivering an integrated portfolio on the ground, where the advantages of one option compensates for the disadvantages of another, is less easy and remains an evolving approach. Structural measures must be seen as part of this portfolio and not in isolation. The portfolio of measures often include large scale strategic interventions. Flood retention areas, storage, levees, dams, tsunami barriers, super embankments if planned well all found legitimate parts of a resilient response to extreme hazards. When developed strategically and in context of a range of other measures, such widespread interventions can offer flexible and robust solutions. A major plan to dredge the rivers through Jakarta has been put forward a major strategy to deepen a number of rivers, many cities are protected by barriers and levee systems (for example Shanghai, London, Netherlands, New Orleans, see Box 7.7). Of equal importance however is the role of local smallscale action, where local scale actions at an individual property or community level are implemented, reducing risk as a whole (see Box 7.8).

Evans et al, (2004)

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 7.7: Linking engineering and natural infrastructure, New Orleans, Louisiana New Orleans was first settled in 1717 by the French. At that time it served as an inland port for commerce to the New World and was relatively protected from hurricanes and coastal storms by a vast coastal wetland extending from New Orleans into the Gulf of Mexico. It has been estimated that every kilometer of wetland extending into the Gulf was capable of reducing the height of hurricane storm surges by 1-2 cm. Human actions to include construction of levees on both sides of the Mississippi River from New Orleans to the Gulf and extensive channelization to support the oil and gas industry operating along the coast, resulted in an annual loss of 6,500 to 10,000 ha of wetlands each year. Hurricane Katrina alone caused the loss of 31,000 ha of wetlands Losing these wetlands was the same as losing part of a structural flood control system. As part of the of the task of providing protection for New Orleans, the oil and gas industry along the coast, and the thousands of residents who populate the region, federal and state governments are undertaking a major coastal wetland restoration project, the total cost of which will exceed $20 billion. Where these wetlands can be restored, they can be used effectively to reduce flood damages. In addition to providing great benefits for flood mitigation, when the floodplains and coastal areas are restored, they also provide many other beneficial functions. This makes the use of wetland areas for flood mitigation even more important. Natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain can be enhanced by effective use of the floodplain and the flows that move through it. At the centre of these restoration efforts will be the construction of diversions of Mississippi River sediment and freshwater from the river into the wetlands to restore the processes that initially created the Mississippi Delta. These diversions will provide for marsh reestablishment, the strengthening of natural ridgelines, and the building or restoration of barrier islands to provide protection against extreme hurricanes (see figure below).

Figure: Coastal Louisiana Natural and Artificial Protection

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Box 7.8: Local small scale actions form a valid part of a resilience response32 Local small-scale actions can provide a positive contribution to water management, attenuating flood flows, improving water quality and providing opportunities for increased biodiversity. Such measures are unlikely to have a significant influence on extreme flood events but are nonetheless a valid component of a comprehensive resilience response. Managing the run-off from building through green roofs and below ground storage: Around the world new buildings are being constructed with green roofs – roofs with natural vegetation that will capture rainfall and hold it on the building - and local below ground storage. Once established, the roof vegetation can reduce the peak flow as well as total run-off volume, storing water, which is released back into the atmosphere by evapo-transpiration, providing a space-efficient means for mitigating urban flooding. As well as absorbing rainfall, green roofs provide wildlife habitat, help lower urban air temperature, insulate buildings, reduce noise and air pollution, and offer aesthetical appeal. This quiet revolution is spreading throughout cities in Europe and the United States. In some countries financial incentives are offered to encourage the uptake of green roof technology and some cities have even made it a legal requirement (for example, in Germany and Switzerland).

Figure: Chicago’s City Hall Building – the first municipal building in the U.S. to host a green roof33 Planting bamboo helps protect villagers against monsoon flooding in Assam, India: Nandeswar Village is located in the Goalpara District of Assam, India. The region experiences severe flooding during the monsoon months from June to September. Local communities plant bamboo along channel embankments to prevent them from being breached and to protect bridges and roads from damage. Planting bamboo along paddy field and fishponds also prevents soil erosion and stops water from flooding low areas during peak flooding days.

32 33

Source: UNISDR (2008) Image from http://teachers.egfi-k12.org/lesson-green-roof-design/

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Utilize community action and shelters in time of emergency Pre-event actions to identify and construct safe havens without the hazard zones can significantly reduce loss of life during major events. Embedding safe havens within the planning process and developing dual roles for buildings â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as safe haven as well as their primary function â&#x20AC;&#x201C; offer an important contribution to developing urban resilience (see Box 7.9). Box 7.9: Use of dual purpose safe havens in Bangladesh34 Bangladesh, a low lying delta nation at the foot of the Himalayas, is prone to many natural disasters, especially floods and wind storms, including tornadoes and cyclones. More than three million people live in high-risk areas along the 400 km coast. In 1991 a cyclone killed more than 138,000 people and left 300,000 homeless. The estimated damage caused by the cyclone was US$1.8 billion. Following this the Government of Bangladesh along with many NGOs began a program of disaster preparedness and management, which included the construction of cyclone shelters in vulnerable coastal areas. Disaster warning systems and evacuation procedures were put in place and some 1,200 multi-storey concrete cyclone shelters constructed adjacent to the coast. A typical shelter is shown below.

Primary school designed for use as a cyclone shelter in Bangladesh

7.9

Assistance to the process of recovery Some structural designs and construction methods lend themselves well to rapid reinstatement post an event (for example where local easily founded materials are utilized, and/or flood proof materials are used) others however can significantly delay recovery (for example requiring specialist or improved materials/tools or skills). Perhaps most important to the establishment of the community post event is the speed within which critical infrastructure can be recovery and reinstated, and people can return to their homes. Drawing on community-based construction skills and techniques The availability of appropriately skilled professionals especially in many low-income developing countries is often seriously constrained.35 In such situations, training of building users and communities in basic maintenance and disaster preparedness may be the most practical way to develop and maintain safety standards in construction and building maintenance. The strategic use of limited professional expertise in such situations has been shown to add value when focused on coordinating the local skills and non-professional human resources that are available, and leveraging and enhancing this through the design and delivery of appropriate training programs. Local construction expertise includes builders and skilled trades people who are familiar with established modes of construction, locally sourced building materials and techniques.36 Drawing on

Source: JICA (2004) Lloyd-Jones, T, ed. (2009) The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response, London: MLC Press, University of Westminster. 36 Ibid. 35

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

local skills, techniques and resources help to avoid the risk of introducing inappropriate designs unfamiliar forms of construction as a ‘quick fix’ (particularly those dependent on imported material and components – see Box 7.10). Such imported methods may be culturally inappropriate or difficult to assimilate. As a result, they may be subject to neglect and lack of maintenance and prove unsustainable in the long term. Where technological innovation is required, for example to increase the resilience of reconstructed buildings and infrastructure to the natural hazards, it is better to adapt existing methods and extend existing skills through training programs where this is possible. Box 7.10: 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Nicaragua – successful CDR project built social capital37 After Hurricane Mitch struck the town of Ocotal, Nicaragua, damaging 1,164 houses and destroying 328, the mayor initiated a CDR project for resettling the affected population as well as for households located in high-risk areas. The guiding principle was to prevent future disasters by protecting the people, while improving the social cohesion of the community. The social dynamics of the community were carefully analyzed and community participation was promoted. The reconstruction process was explained to the citizens in community meetings, and the damage and loss assessment was conducted to reflect the community’s own priorities. Additionally, the new building site underwent an extensive planning process during which the proximity of the site to the future residents’ income sources was analyzed, as were possibilities for the future growth of the community, an important consideration when rapid population growth is expected. Culturally and environmentally appropriate house designs, including improved traditional building materials and techniques, were proposed by a local architect and presented to the community. Future residents discussed the design and could request modifications, which were incorporated when technically feasible. Access to a house was contingent on full participation in the construction by at least one family member. Because Ocotal constructed its own adobe factory, it created much-needed employment in an effort to reduce out-migration from the town. Beneficiaries were trained in hazard- resistant construction, including the modification of traditional adobe building practices. Participation in the joint construction work on the building site made it possible for residents-to-be to establish initial contacts with their new neighbors. People’s pride and self-esteem increased as the project progressed, social cohesion was fostered, and a positive neighborhood identity was created. The Ocotal reconstruction project successfully incorporated prevention and built social capital, which has contributed to the sustainability of the project. In all, approximately 300 new homes have been built to date.

7.10 Strategy and capacity to promote (and force) resilient design Perhaps what above all distinguishes a risk-informed resilience design process from previous approaches to design or decision-making is that it deals with outcomes, enabling the benefits and costs of structural and non-structural intervention options to be compared on the basis of their impact on risk. This is distinct, from, for example, an engineering/safety standards-based approach that focuses on the severity of the load that a particular structure is expected to withstand. This change in design and decision thinking is summarized in Table 7.2.

Sources: From the Safer Homes: Stronger Communities, Washington DC: World Bank that builds on Leemann, E (2010,) Housing Reconstruction in Post-Mitch Nicaragua: Two Case Studies from the Communities of San Dionisio and Ocotal, in Miller, S D and Rivera, J D, eds. Community Disaster Recovery and Resiliency: Exploring Global Opportunities and Challenges (Auerbach Publications, forthcoming); and José Luis Rocha, 1999, “Ocotal: Urban Planning for People,” Envio digital 218, http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/2299.

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 7.2: The change in design paradigm towards risk informed resilience design38

Engineering Design / Safety Standards (Traditional approach)

Management Basis paradigm

Probability

Risk Management (Modern approach)

Consequence

Risk

Characteristic motivation

Example objective

Historical event

To prevent flooding during a repeat of a specified historical event.

Design the flood defenses to withstand the 1822 flood.

Single design events

To prevent flooding during a storm event of a specified return period.

Design the flood defenses to withstand a 1:100 year flood.

Multiple design events

To prevent flooding for a given design storm event set according to the nature of the land use/asset protected.

In highly urbanized areas design the flood defenses to withstand a 1:200 year flood. In rural areas design the flood defenses to withstand a 1:20 year flood.

Safety regulation

To limit the consequences of flooding during the probable maximum flood flow to a specified level (safety standard) regardless of the cost of doing so.

During the probable maximum hydrological flow ensure no individual is exposed to a chance of -4 dying in excess of 10 . Ensure the chance of >1000 people dying is -7 less than 10

Resource optimal and multi-criteria

Implement a portfolio of measures and instruments to reduce risk effectively and efficiently whilst achieving societal To implement a range of preferences for equity, interventions that safety, and ecosystem maximize benefits (across health. The increased multi-criteria) and minimize resource inputs required whole life resource input. to providing progressively greater reductions in risk should not be disproportionate to the additional benefits secured.

The ability to implement on-the-ground actions that improve resilience reflects in no small part the ability to force change. â&#x20AC;˘

Enforcing design and workmanship standards â&#x20AC;&#x201C; This could be through mandatory and enforcement of building codes, supervision of building regulations and construction.

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

•

Incentives take-up – Often the perceived additional costs of resilient designs can be a barrier. Incentives for the uptake of resilient designs (that may have a higher initial costs - although not always) through specific grants can promote uptake.

•

Forcing a link between hazard awareness and planning – Mandating the publishing hazard maps, and making hazard maps a statutory consideration for planners.

As noted in Chapter 1, according to UN/ISDR resilience is a consequence of strengthening the coping capacity of ‘people, organizations and systems, using available skills and resources, to face and manage adverse conditions, emergencies or disasters.’ This concept is applied to structural measures to reduce vulnerability to floods in Figure 7.7 and extended to include other types of capacity – threshold, adaptive and recovery – that contribute to building resilience. A richer understanding of the hazards, risks and whole system performance becomes increasingly important the more extreme the hazards. There may be no local living history of flooding, for example, and no community knowledge of flood resilient design, but this does not mean that a significant flood hazard does not exist. As previously noted, training of local workman, engineers and community leaders in the important hazards and combinations of hazards is a pre-requisite for the resilient construction (design details and materials) and as equally important as providing hazard mapping.

Figure 7.7: A range of structural measures and how they build resilience (in the case of urban floods

Tools, methods, checklists and information sources 7.11 Supporting tools and techniques Various guides are available to support the design process. Many of these are specific to the hazard faced (design codes for seismic, floods, wind etc) and many are tailored to the local conditions found in different parts of the world. Within this section no attempt is made to list these guides but rather it

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

focuses on the emerging tools and techniques that help decisions makers many robust choices and target investment effectively to promote resilience and reduce risks in complex changing systems. Engineering design in the context of whole system performance Traditional process models, extreme value analysis, as in traditional management, still form the backbone of understanding. Engineering guides continue to provide advice. Resilience design seeks to understand the key components in the system, their dependencies and interdependencies, and which aspects contribute most to risk. By formally attributing risk to individual engineered assets and infrastructure systems effort and resources (money and time) can be effectively targeted. Whole system simulation models capable of providing this insight and attributing risk to individual components are starting to emerge. Probabilistic simulation models, such as RASP (Risk Assessment for Strategic Planning) attribute risk to specific infrastructure.39 This enables efforts to be targeted to specific improvements (Figure 7.8)

Figure 7.8: The expected annual damages attributed to individual defense assets with an asset system (as well as spatially within the floodplain) enable critical components to be quickly highlighted and actions targeted.40 Dealing with uncertainty â&#x20AC;&#x201C; building adaptive capacity Uncertainty as what to do is natural and wholly acceptable (in fact, it can be argued that being too certain that one approach is preferred is a very dangerous state). Developing risk management strategies in the context of these severe uncertainties demands a new way of appraising alternative strategies and various useful and useable tools are starting to emerge, including: ď&#x201A;§

39 40

Scenario development

Sayers & Meadowcroft, 2005; Gouldby et al, 2008 Sayers et al, 2010

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific



Decision robustness and flexibility analysis



Complexity methods – agent-based simulation

Each of these are briefly discussed below. Scenario development As part of the UK Government’s Foresight program, a toolkit has been developed for Exploring the future: tools for strategic thinking. These are available for anyone who uses, or would like to use, futures thinking and analysis to make better decisions today. The toolkit is intended for futures analysts, policy-makers, strategists and people managing a futures process.41 Decision robustness and flexibility analysis - Use of real options The use of real options to formally “value” additional flexibility within the risk management strategies and infrastructure designs (for example land banking for future rising of a levee) provide a promising approach. Initial experience with real options approaches (for example as part of the Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan, see Box 7.11) confirms they are well suited to the development of risk management strategies that need to be flexible to deal with the severe uncertainties in climate and demographic change.42 Box 7.11: Incorporating climate change into decision-making – Thames Estuary 2100: an initial application of adaptive decision-making.43 From 2004-2010, the Environment Agency, UK developed a tidal flood risk management plan for the Thames estuary for the next 100 years (the so called Thames Estuary 2100). As such, the implications of future sea level rise and increasing frequency of storm surges from climate change were critical considerations. The Thames estuary floodplain contains 1.25 million people (one sixth of London’s population), about £200bn of property, 16 hospitals and eight power stations and key transport and infrastructure assets, including the London Underground. The value of assets at risk and the long lead times involved in developing solutions emphasize the need to plan in advance for the effects of climate change. The severe uncertainty over the future impacts of climate change meant the ability to adopt a flexible strategy and formally value this flexibility within the decision process was critical. The TE2100 team adopted a real options analysis as the framework to incorporate the uncertainty of climate change and the value of flexibility into decision making. Through consideration of real options (i.e. an alternative or choice that becomes available through an investment opportunity or action) the TE2100 team identified options to cope with different levels of sea level rise, and the thresholds at which they will be required. The options were designed to implement the small incremental changes common to all options first, leaving major irreversible decisions as far as possible into the future to make best use of the information available. The real options analysis recognized that information about uncertainty changes over time (for example, from learning or research). The TE2100 Plan therefore includes a monitoring and evaluation strategy. If monitoring reveals that climate change is happening more quickly (or slowly) than predicted, the implications for decision points are established. The strategy can be reappraised in light of the new information and options can be brought forward (or put back). This helps ensure adaptation decisions are made at the right time. As the reality of the future sea level rise becomes know the strategy is reappraised and adapted. Some options require significant lead time and this to was factored into the monitoring plan.

- See <http://hsctoolkit.tribalhosting.net/index.htm>

McGahey, C., & Sayers, P. (2008). Long term planning - Robust strategic decision making in the face of gross uncertainty - tools and application to the Thames. Flood Risk Management: Research and Practice. Proc. of FLOODrisk 2008, 30 Sep - 2 Oct, Oxford, UK. Taylor & Francis Group, London. Pp 1543-1553 (on CD). 43 TE 2100 study website <http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/104695.aspx> WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Individual responses to increasing flood risk arising from sea level rise were assembled into portfolios of responses to deal with differing levels of climate change (expressed in meters of sea level rise).(if this case study continues to the final report - better figure to be sourced) Agent-based simulations - Dealing with complex and interactive systems Various qualitative tools are available to marshal our understanding regarding the potential interactions within complex infrastructure systems. Often presented in diagrammatic or table form such methods can be useful both for analyzing actual events and exploring the likely outcomes of potential ‘what-if’ scenarios and tracing the cascade of failures through to a final outcome (Figure 7.9) or marshaling high level tradeoff decisions. Such methods however offer limited predictive capability.

Stage 1  Cauase

•  Natural hazard  •  Opera/onal  failure

Stage 2  Inicident

•  Levee  exceeded  •  Rupture of gas  line  •  Loss of cooling  water

Stage 3  Event

•  Flood   •  Explosion  •  Radia/on  escape

Stage 4  Outcome

•  Loss of life  (short and  long term)  •  Property  damage

Figure 7.9 A qualtiative model for depicting the linked relationships between hazards and their ultimate outcomes.44 An increasingly effective way to investigate complex adaptive systems is to view them as populations of interacting agents. Agent-based modeling is becoming well established as a method for simulating complex adaptive systems, i.e. those with many actors (agents) whose behavior both adapts to, and influences emerging conditions. Agent-based models do not attempt to predict the outcome of decision but rather to reveal emergent properties of a complex system, enabling the most vulnerable and least resilience aspects of the system to be identified and how these change with different decisions.

Adapted from Baisuck, A, & Wallace, W (1979). A Framework for Analyzing Marine Accidents. Marine Technology Society Journal , pp. 8-14. WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific Agent-based methods are becoming commonplace in emergency evacuation planning45 and modeling interactions between critical infrastructures, the organizations that manage them and the individual and communities that rely upon them.46 The complex interactions and cascades of risk that exist at a region of scales in developing resilient communities and are starting to become commonplace. Such methods, although still relatively immature, have significant potential to help make sense of them.

7.12 Key references Exploring the future: Tools for strategic thinking <http://hsctoolkit.tribalhosting.net/index.htm> As part of the UK Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Foresight Programme, for example, a toolkit has been developed for These are available for anyone who uses, or would like to use, futures thinking and analysis to make better decisions today. The toolkit is intended for futures analysts, policy-makers, strategists and people managing a futures process. INTERREG EC Flood Resilient Cities. (n.d.). <http://www.floodresiliencity.eu> Sayers, P, Galloway, G, Penning-Rowsell, E, Shen, F, Wen, K, Chen, Y, et al. (2011). Flood Risk Management : A strategic approach - Consultation Draft. Publication of the WWF and General Institute of Water Design and Planning (GIWP) China. Request through paul.sayers@sayersandpartners.co.uk (to be published through UN late 2011/ early 2012)

7.13 Good practice recommendations for structural design issues and checklist for policy makers, and project design and assessment checklist See Tables 7.3 and 7.4 below.

Dawson et al (2011) Little, R. (2005). Organizational Culture and the Performance of Critical Infrastructure: Modeling and Simulation in Socio-technological Systems. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. . 46

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 7.3: Good practice recommendations for structural design and checklist for policy

makers General good practice and policy recommendations:

National/regional level*

City level**

1. Sustainability in the face of hazard risk – aim at design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures that:  Continues to function when exposed to natural hazardous events that exceed design levels;  Can rapidly recover from a disruptive event (supporting the rapid return to normality - avoiding the need for complex plant, highly specialist skills or difficult to source materials).  Continues to operate during extreme events (for example, critical infrastructure such as pumping stations, bridges, gates etc must continue to operate on demand)  Utilizes sustainable materials and processes.  Takes a long term view avoiding short-termism.  Maximizes the use of the sunk investments.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban, infrastructure and building policies require, offer guidance and adequately specify measures for ensuring sustainability of buildings and infrastructures in the face of hazard risk?

 Does the city practice urban and infrastructure planning and development control measures aimed at ensuring sustainability of buildings and infrastructures in the face of hazard risk?

2. Adopt a strategic approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures:  Identify a range of strategic alternatives (including a portfolio of structural and non-structural responses) and possible future scenarios (reflecting plausible change in climate, demographic, funding etc).  Evaluate the performance of each strategic alternative against multicriteria representing societal preferences for economic efficiency, ecosystem benefits and social equality.  Consider investing proportionately greater resources to protect the vulnerable and deliver ecosystem benefits.  Identify a preferred strategy - then continue to monitor and adapt the strategy as the reality of the future becomes known.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban, infrastructure and building policies require or offer guidance on a strategic approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

 Does the city practice urban and infrastructure planning and development control incorporating a strategic approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

3. Adopt a whole systems approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures:  Consider the joint extreme – How likely is the structure to experience multiple hazards simultaneously?  Consider the spatial coherence of the hazards – How widespread is a single event likely to be?  Consider the temporal coherence – Are certain sequences of events more or less critical than larger single events?  Design for performance across a wide range of loading conditions from the more frequently occurring to the more extreme (above design loads).  Design to improve the performance of the infrastructure asset system as a whole  Design for whole life performance and ongoing repair and maintenances.  Avoid perverse consequences and a false sense of security by over reliance on top down, technical solutions.  Adopt an iterative and adaptive approach recognizing that decisions must be made with imperfect knowledge.  Look for robust and imaginative solutions that perform well in multiplausible futures.  Plan for exceedence – Absolute protection is not possible. There will always be a bigger hazard event.  Design for residual risk – structural interventions do not eliminate risk. Set up a consensual process for agreeing acceptable levels of risk.  Design in redundancy.  Implement a portfolio of responses.

 Do existing national/subnational planning and urban, infrastructure and building policies require or offer guidance on a whole systems approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

 Does the city practice urban and infrastructure planning and development control incorporating a whole systems approach approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

*World Bank Project Management Cycle; PMC1 Country Assistance Strategy ** PMC2 Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and board approval PMC4 Implementation and supervision PMC5 Implementation and completion; PMC6 Evaluation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

Table 7.4: Good practice recommendations for structural design and project design and

assessment checklist General good practice and policy recommendations:

Checklist for task managers:*

 Does the infrastructure investment project adequately specify measures for ensuring sustainability of buildings and infrastructures in the face of hazard risk?

2. Adopt a strategic approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures:  Identify a range of strategic alternatives (including a portfolio of structural and non-structural responses) and possible future scenarios (reflecting plausible change in climate, demographic, funding etc).  Evaluate the performance of each strategic alternative against multi-criteria representing societal preferences for economic efficiency, ecosystem benefits and social equality.  Consider investing proportionately greater resources to protect the vulnerable and deliver ecosystem benefits.  Identify a preferred strategy - then continue to monitor and adapt the strategy as the reality of the future becomes known.

 Does the project a strategic approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

 Does the project a whole systems approach to the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructures?

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated

ROBUST CITIES: Building Resilience into Urban Investments in East Asia and the Pacific

  

 

decisions must be made with imperfect knowledge. Look for robust and imaginative solutions that perform well in multi-plausible futures. Plan for exceedence – Absolute protection is not possible. There will always be a bigger hazard event. Design for residual risk – structural interventions do not eliminate risk. Set up a consensual process for agreeing acceptable levels of risk. Design in redundancy. Implement a portfolio of responses.

*PMC2 Identification; PMC3: Preparation, appraisal and board approval PMC4 Implementation and supervision PMC5 Implementation and completion; PMC6 Evaluation

WSPimc 8 July 2011 DRAFT only not to be cited or circulated