ˆˇ - home | undrr › campaign › resilientcities › assets...city learning programmes,...

�� Funded by European UnionCivil Protection

Module 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience

Uscore2: City-to-City Peer Review Tool

This document has been prepared as part ofthe Uscore2 - City-to-city local level peerreview on Disaster Risk Reduction project.The sole responsibility for the content of thispublication lies with the author(s). Thisdocument covers civil protection activitiesimplemented with the financial assistance ofthe European Union’s DG-ECHO Call forproposals 2016 for prevention andpreparedness projects in the field of civilprotection programme under, agreementnumber: ECHO/SUB/2016/743543/PREV04.The views expressed herein should not betaken, in any way, to reflect the officialopinion of the European Union, and theEuropean Commission is not responsible forany use that may be made of the informationit contains.

Website: www.Uscore2.euTwitter: @Uscore2EU

1

��Funded by

European UnionCivil Protection

CONTENTSIntroduction 3

Background 4

Further Information 5

How can a City's capacity to Organise for Disaster Resilience be Assessed and Improved? 6

How can this be measured? 7

Methodology 8

Phase 2, Step 7: Information to send to Review Team prior to the Review Team visit 8

Suggestions for the type of pre-visit evidence that could be shared between theHost City and Review Team 8

Phase 2, Step 8: Arrangements for the Peer Review Visit 10

Who should the Review Team interview? 10

How can the Host City demonstrate Organising for Disaster Resilience? 10

Phase 2, Step 9: Review Team: Gathering Evidence 12

Phase 3, Step 11: Recording Information and Drafting Initial Recommendations 16


22 Module 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience


Uscore2 is a peer-to-peer review process forcities, designed with funding from the EuropeanCommission, it enables cities to share andlearn from good practice in Disaster RiskReduction (DRR) from other cities across theworld. Uscore2 focuses on the use of city-levelpeer reviews as a tool with which the activitiesof one city in the area of disaster riskmanagement and civil protection are examinedon an equal basis by fellow peers who areexperts from other cities. This approachfacilitates improvements in DRR through theexchange of good practice and mutual learning,whilst also maintaining impartiality andtransparency. This peer review programmeintegrates an evidence based methodology forimpact evaluation, enabling participants todemonstrate the value generated by theinvestment in the peer review.

Cities undertaking a peer review of Organisingfor Disaster Resilience will generally beundertaking this as part of a wider review asoutlined in the Uscore2 Step-by-Step Guide toCity-to-City Peer Reviews for Disaster RiskReduction. The Step-by-Step Guide provides anessential overview of the peer review process,the Impact Evaluation Methodology (IEM) usedto measure the impact of the peer review andthe 11 Modules for conducting city-to-city peerreviews for DRR.

It is strongly recommended that citiesinterested in inviting another city to peer reviewtheir DRR activity work through the Step-by-Step Guide as a precursor to undertakingModule 1. This Module Guide gives informationrelevant to those steps in the peer reviewprocess which are specific to Essential 1.

During the development of Uscore2, the peerreview process has been piloted by three cities:Amadora (Portugal), Salford (UK) and Viggiano(Italy). The pilot cities spoke positively of theirexperiences:

“Peer reviews are interactive and aboutmutual learning, exchange of best practiceand policy dialogue, a support tool forprevention and preparation under the EUcivil protection mechanism and promote anintegrated approach to disaster riskmanagement, linking risk prevention,preparation, response and recovery actions.”


INTRODUCTION

3


BACKGROUND

4

This Module addresses the ways in which citiescan strengthen their local level capacity,establish coordination within the city, buildnetworks and form legislative frameworks forresilience (UNISDR, n.d). To strengthen disasterrisk governance in order to manage risk, citiesmust consider action within and across sectorsat local, national, regional and global levels(Sendai, 2015).

In the Making Cities Resilient Campaign, theimportance of disaster risk governance inenabling effective urban disaster risk reductionis reflected in its position as the first essentialactivity: to organise for disaster resilience: toput in place an organisational structure andidentify the necessary process to understandand act on reducing exposure, impact andvulnerability to disasters (UNISDR, n.d).

To achieve effective and efficient managementof disaster risk, cities need to consider howwell they establish a clear vision and plans forDRR and resilience building (Sendai, 2015), andhow the city coordinates within and acrosssectors (Sendai, 2015). This should include howcoordination can be effectively decentralised formaximum efficiency and effectiveness (Gilissenet al. 2016).

In addition, it is vital to consider how the citywill engage all relevant stakeholders (Sendai,2015) and address its communication,knowledge exchange and resource mobilisationwith them (Kamh et al. 2016). Also important todisaster risk governance is the building andmaintenance of alliances with various groupsincluding communities, businesses andscientists in order to effect change in DRRdecision making (Hamdan 2012). Finally, strongrisk governance should consider disasterprevention, mitigation, preparedness, response,recovery and rehabilitation (Sendai, 2015) inaccordance with relevant risks identified(UNISDR, n.d).

To further support national and localgovernment the Sendai Framework (2015) setsout some mechanisms to support thestrengthening of disaster risk governance. Insummary these include:• Use of frameworks of laws, regulations andpublic policies

• Development of Disaster Risk Reductionstrategies

• Assessment of disaster risk managementcapacity

• Mechanisms and incentives to ensurecompliance with safety-enhancing laws andregulations

• Mechanisms to assess progress against andpromote scrutiny of Disaster Risk Reductionplans

• Ensure disaster risk managementinstitutions are set clear roles and tasks

• Multi-stakeholder coordination forums formulti-sectoral disaster risk reduction

• Coordination with civil society, communitiesand indigenous peoples and migrants

• Allocation of budgets to Disaster RiskReduction

• Development of quality standards• Prevention or relocation of settlements inrisk-prone zones.

Disaster risk governance is therefore central tomanaging and responding to risks. Peerreviews offer a means to assess strengths andopportunities for cities through exchanginggood practice, receiving recommendations fromexpert reviewers and mutual learningexchanges.

ReferencesGilissen, H. K., M. Alexander, P. Matczak, M.Pettersson, and S. Bruzzone. 2016. Aframework for evaluating the effectiveness offlood emergency management systems inEurope. Ecology and Society 21(4): 27.



Hamdan, F. (2012). Intensive and ExtensiveDisaster Risk Drivers and Incentives forDisaster Risk Management in the MENA region,Disaster Risk Management Centre, Geneva,Switzerland, 2013.

Kamh, Y. Z., Khalifa, M. A., & El-Bahrawy, A. N.(2016). Comparative Study of CommunityResilience in Mega Coastal Cities Threatenedby Sea Level Rise: The Case of Alexandria andJakarta. Procedia - Social and BehavioralSciences, 216(October 2015), pp. 503–517.

Sendai Framework for (2015). SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 –2030, United Nations, Geneva.

UNISDR. (n.d). Essential One: Organise forDisaster Resilience, available from:http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/index/Essential%20One:%20Organise%20for%20Disaster%20Resilience/?id=1

Further InformationFor further information on peer reviews visit:www.Uscore2.eu. Also refer to ISO 22392 whenpublished. Currently it is in draft and willcontain further information about peer reviews.

5Module 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience

The description of Essential 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience taken from the UNISDR’s MakingCities Resilient website and given below, describes the activities a city should be demonstrating toimprove resilience in this area. A city’s capacity for resilience is the responsibility of a number oforganisations, though it is usual for local government to take the lead and enable effectivecollaboration and governance arrangements.


HOW CAN A CITY'S CAPACITY TO ORGANISE FORDISASTER RESILIENCE BE ASSESSED AND IMPROVED?

6

Essential 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience

Establish and strengthen the local level institutional and coordination capacity• Establish a single point of coordination in the city, accepted by all stakeholders;• Exercise strong leadership and commitment at the highest elected level within the cityauthority, such as the Mayor;

• Ensure that all departments understand the importance of disaster risk reduction forachieving objectives of respective department’s policies and programs and identify measuresto reduce disaster risk within their roles and responsibilities; and that they have a frameworkwithin which to collaborate as required.

Build alliances and networks• Engage and build alliances with all relevant stakeholder groups including government at alllevels, such as national, state, city, parish or other subdivision, neighbouring cities orcountries when applicable, civil society, community organisations and the private sector;

• Engage and learn from other city networks and initiatives, for example taking part in city-to-city learning programmes, promoting climate change and resilience initiatives, etc.

Form a legislative framework and action mechanisms for resilience• Establish necessary strategies, acts, laws, codes or integrate resilience qualities into existingpolicies aimed at preventing the creation of risk and reduction of existing risk;

• Create policies to gather and manage data for sharing amongst all stakeholders and citizens,ensuring that all city government discussions routinely capture resilience implications, thatthe resilience implications of policies and standards in use are also assessed, and that actionis taken upon these as needed;

• Put in place reporting mechanisms that capture key information about resilience and promotetransparency, accountability and improved data capture over time (e.g. consider use ofUNISDR tools Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities Preliminary and Detailed LevelAssessment).


The following table describes the high level indicators for Essential 1 taken from the DisasterResilience Scorecard Preliminary Level Assessment. These are used in this Module as indicatorsagainst which to gather evidence and make recommendations.


7

HOW CAN THIS BE MEASURED?

Ref Subject / Issue Question / Assessment Area

P 1.1 Plan making Does the city master plan (or relevant strategy / plan) includeand implement disaster risk reduction approaches in line withthe Sendai Framework?

By ‘plan’ we typically mean some form of city wide plan, crosscutting strategy or vision. This could be a spatial plan, aninfrastructure plan or an environmental or sustainability plan,providing it complies with the criteria from Sendai Frameworkparagraph 27 (b).

Alternatively, if a city has a stand-alone disaster risk reductionplan / policy / strategy in place in line with the nationalstrategies this can also demonstrate compliance.

For compliance the plan should have coverage across all of theTen Essentials.

P 1.2 Organisation,coordination andparticipation

P 1.3 Integration

Is there a multi-agency / sectoral mechanism withappropriate authority and resources to address disasterrisk reduction?

Is resilience properly integrated with other key city functions/ portfolios? (e.g. planning, sustainability, investment caseapproval, finance and compliance, community engagement,emergency management, code compliance, infrastructuremanagement, communications, etc.)

The full Detailed Assessment from the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities is availablethrough the following link:http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/toolkitblkitem/?id=4



METHODOLOGYPHASE 2, STEP 7: INFORMATION TO SEND TO REVIEWTEAM PRIOR TO THE REVIEW TEAM VISIT

Please refer to the Step-by-Step Guide for advice on both conducting and hosting peer reviews.This section sets out information that is specific to this Essential in Phase 2.

8

As set out in the Step-by-Step Guide if Module 2(Identify, Understand and Use Current andFuture Risk Scenarios) is not undertaken at thesame time as Module 1, then an overview of theHost City’s DRR risk assessment should beincluded in the pre-visit information sent to theReview Team.

The Host City should aim to send the pre-visitevidence to the Review Team three monthsahead of the peer review visit. It isrecommended that the pre-visit evidence islimited to 3 – 5 items for each Essential.

Suggestions for the type of pre-visitevidence that could be shared between theHost City and Review TeamA selection of evidence should be sent to theReview Team before their visit to the Host City.This could include the type of information listedbelow or any other information that the HostCity and the Review Team agree would be ofbenefit.

It is highly recommended that the Host Cityprepare a summary of how the Host Cityensures it is organised for effective disasterresilience including

• A description of how leadership for DRR isdelivered in the city

• A structure chart of DRR governanceshowing key stakeholders, organisations andcommunity representation

• An example or case study describing how theHost City’s DRR governance arrangementshave helped to prevent the creation ofdisaster risk or reduced an existing disasterrisk or strengthened city resilience(economic, social, health or environmental)

• If carried out, the outcomes of localcompletion of the UNISDR’s DisasterResilience Scorecard for Cities, Essential 1.

In addition, no more than 4 other items shouldbe selected from the suggestions below todemonstrate the Host City’s baseline capacityfor organising for disaster resilience.

P1.1 Plan making• The Host City’s DRR / Resilience Strategy and/ or a city vision (master plan or managementplan) that incorporates the Host City’sapproach to disaster risk reduction

• A summary of how stakeholders and thewider society have been involved indeveloping the strategy and approach theHost City is taking to DRR

• A description of how local DRRarrangements are aligned with nationalstrategies

• An analysis or academic study of theeffectiveness of the Host City’s approach toorganising for disaster resilience

• A report from, or description of, an exampleof a city-to-city knowledge exchange that hasstrengthened the city’s disaster riskgovernance arrangements.

P1.2 Organisation, coordination andparticipation

• A description of the local platform for DRR• Minutes from a recent meeting of the localplatform / multi-agency mechanism for DRR

• A description of a cross-sector project withinthe Host City to reduce disaster risk

• A summary of how the Host City’s cross-sector arrangements for DRR are resourced(finance, staff etc.).



9

P1.3 Integration• A short description or overview as to how thecity ensures it has the skills, knowledge andexperience to identify risks, mitigate risks,plan for and respond to disasters, drawingdown relevant expertise available withininstitutions, e.g. academic institutions

• A description of how resilience properlyintegrated with other key city functions /portfolios (e.g. planning, sustainability,investment case approval, finance andcompliance, community engagement,emergency management, code compliance,infrastructure management,communications etc.).



10

PHASE 2, STEP 8: ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PEER REVIEW VISIT

As described in the Step-by-Step Guide, in the 3-6 months before the peer review visit, the HostCity and Review Team are recommended toagree an agenda for the visit. This will include arange of activities to enable the Review Team tounderstand how the city is strengthening andimproving its effective organisation for disasterresilience. The types of activities could includesome or all of those listed below, or any otherrelevant actions. It is anticipated that the reviewof this Module will take a day. For all interviews,the Host City should ensure translators areavailable if they are required.At the start of the Review Team’s assessment ofEssential 1, the Host City is highlyrecommended to make a summary presentationto the Review Team which sets out the approachto organising for disaster resilience. This couldinclude information about:• How the Host City governance arrangementsfor DRR operate

• The authority and influence the city’sgovernance structures have across differentsectors and portfolios within the Host City

• How those involved in DRR governance areinformed about the disaster risks the HostCity faces and their role in efforts to reducethese risks and strengthen resilience whilstavoiding the creation of new risks

• Future aspirations and ambitions of the DRRgovernance structures.

Who should the Review Team interview?When considering who is important for theReview Team to interview and / or receive apresentation from, it is highly recommendedthat the Mayor and / or other key local politicalleaders engaged in disaster risk governancewithin the Host City are included and available.The Host City and Review Team should considerall Modules being assessed during the peerreview and combine relevant questions witheach senior politician or officer into oneappointment.

The Host City and Review Team may also wishto consider who would be most appropriate inlight of their initial exchange of pre-visitinformation and also given the most probableand most severe disaster scenarios for the HostCity. Suggestions include: • Senior managers of institutions that are partof the Host City governance arrangements

• Author(s) of the Host City’s master plan orequivalent that sets out how the Host Citywill address disaster risk reduction

• Senior managers from other city functions /portfolios that have a role in DRR

• Senior managers in different organisationsand from different sectors who are part ofthe Host City’s multi-agency and cross-sector mechanism / local platform for DRR

• Senior managers from organisations in theHost City that invest in DRR

• Representatives from the national level whohave a responsibility for DRR (e.g. planning,sustainability, investment case approval,finance and compliance, communityengagement, emergency management, codecompliance, infrastructure management,communications etc.).

How can the Host City demonstrateOrganising for Disaster Resilience?In addition to interviews and presentations,suggestions for activities within the programmefor the visit include:• Site visits to projects within the Host Citydemonstrate organising for disasterresilience?

• Community visits to observe programmesorganised by the Host City, in collaborationwith partners, to strengthen communityresilience

• Visiting a team researching and assemblingdata in relation to disaster risk governance

• Observing or participating in a meeting of thelocal platform for DRR / multi-agency andcross-sector mechanism for DRR.



11Module 1: Organise for Disaster Resilience


12

PHASE 2, STEP 9: REVIEW TEAM: GATHERING EVIDENCE

The Review Team will gather evidence from thepre-review information submitted before thepeer review visit, together with informationfrom interviews and activities undertakenduring the visit, to gain a view of theeffectiveness of the existing Host City approachto organising for disaster resilience. This willinclude:

• Whether there are suitable and sufficientorganisational arrangements for DRR inplace

• Effectiveness of the governance structureswithin the Host City in engaging all relevantagencies and organisations to support DRR

• Effectiveness of communication within thegovernance structures.

The Review Team will structure their evidencegathering and interviews to enable the HostCity to describe and demonstrate theirapproach against each of the indicatorsincluded in the Disaster Resilience ScorecardPreliminary Level Assessment. Overall, theReview Team should determine:

• Who leads / contributes / coordinates /assesses performance in this area? Is thiseffective? Is shared ownership of DRRevident?

• Who is missing / underperforming orunderrepresented?

• What skills and experience are evidenced?Are there deficits?

• What activities currently supportperformance in this area, are these activitieseffective?

• What, if any, additional activities would theHost City like to undertake in future? Whatare the barriers to extending activities?

• How are resources / information / trainingshared? Are there exclusions or barriers toaccess?

• How is the Host City aligning with nationaland international sources of expertise inDRR? Which networks is the Host City part ofto support this activity?

Although the Review Team should design theirown detailed questions in order to exploreissues they consider relevant in the context ofthe Host City, the following questions areoffered as suggestions that may be helpful instakeholder interviews for Essential 1. They areexample questions and it is wholly acceptableto tailor them or, equally, not to use them,according to the individual peer review. TheReview Team could choose to select just therelevant questions as well as asking additionalquestions that have not been listed below.



13

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions


P 1.1 Plan making Does the Host City master plan (or relevant strategy /plan) include and implement disaster risk reductionapproaches in line with the Sendai Framework?

By ‘plan’ we typically mean some form of city wide plan,cross cutting strategy or vision. This could be a spatialplan, an infrastructure plan or an environmental orsustainability plan, providing it complies with the criteriafrom Sendai Framework paragraph 27 (b).

Alternatively, if the Host City has a stand-alone disasterrisk reduction plan / policy / strategy in place in line withthe national strategies this can also demonstratecompliance.

For compliance the plan should have coverage across allof the Ten Essentials.

Does the Host City master plan (or relevant strategy / plan)include and implement disaster risk reduction approachesin line with the Sendai Framework?

• How is the Sendai Framework reflected in the strategy /vision / master plan? For example:o Planned across different timescaleso Targets, indicators and timeframes includedo Addresses preventing the creation of risko Addresses the reduction of existing risko Strengthens economic, social, health and environmental resilience

• What makes the city’s DRR governance effective? Whatare the particular strengths of current arrangements?

• How is progress against the Host City’s DRR strategyand / or actions measured? How is the impact of DRRactivity measured?

• How does the Host City assure itself of the effectivenessof its DRR governance?

• How is the Host City using any quality standards tosupport its work e.g. ISO, CEN, LGSAT, DisasterResilience Scorecard?

• How does the Host City tackle its disaster risksespecially the most probable and most severe, includingreducing exposure and vulnerability (e.g. reduce,mitigate, prepare for)?


14


P 1.2 Organisation,coordination andparticipation

• How do the governance arrangements ensure theirdecisions are informed and evidence based? How dothey draw on scientific, technical or academic advice andknowledge?

• What is the approach in the Host City to ensuring an all-of-society approach to DRR that recognises the needs ofvulnerable people?

• How is the community involved in DRR governance?• What are the barriers to the Host City strengthening itsDRR governance?

• How does the Host City’s DRR governance draw onlearning and good practice from other cities?

• How does the Host City ensure there is an effective,functioning, multi-agency, cross-sectoral mechanismwith appropriate authority and resources to addressdisaster risk reduction?

• Who is in overall charge of DRR in the Host City? Whohas the authority in the Host City to strengthenapproaches to DRR?

• How do the Host City’s DRR governance structuresensure DRR activities are joined up across differentdepartments / organisations to ensure maximum DRRbenefit from DRR investments?

• How do regional and national governments work withthe Host City government to strengthen DRR?

• How does the Host City influence the regional andnational direction in DRR?

• What evidence is available to confirm that institutionscharged with civil protection and the safety of citizenstogether with those responsible for economic and socialinfrastructure understand and accept their specific DRRresponsibilities for hazard assessment, vulnerabilityanalysis, mitigation and DRR?

• How does the Host City’s local government assure itselfit has proportionate and adequate capabilities in placefor disasters?

• Who can mobilise and allocate resources and funding toDRR activities?

• How does the DRR governance structure budget for DRRactivities?

• How does the Host City align contributions across allsectors to maximise available resources to deliverefficient and effective DRR?


P 1.1 Plan making


15


P 1.3 Integration Is resilience properly integrated with other key Host Cityfunctions / portfolios? (e.g., planning, sustainability,investment case approval, finance and compliance,community engagement, emergency management, codecompliance, infrastructure management, communicationsetc.)

• How does the Host City work across silos to make DRR“everyone’s business”?

• How is the Host City encouraging all of its departmentsand key institutions to plan for changing risks, includingthose due to climate change?

• How does the Host City factor climate changeprojections into key decision to mitigate disaster risks,especially in vulnerable areas of the city?

• How does the Host City actively promote principles ofequality and non-discrimination in the DRR activitiesundertaken by all departments and critical city services?

• How are civil society, communities and indigenouspeoples and migrants involved in setting the Host City’sfuture direction for DRR?

• How does the Host City’s DRR governance contribute toand support public awareness and education aboutdisaster risk, facilitate community resilience andadvocate for an all-of-society approach in disaster riskmanagement?

• Does the Host City have a standard procedure to engagecitizens in the development / assessment of DRRactivities?



PHASE 3, STEP 11: RECORDING INFORMATIONAND DRAFTING INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

16

The Step-by-Step Guide describes howthe Review Team can record informationduring the peer review visit and includesa generic form that can be used tocapture information during individualpresentations, interviews and otheractivities.

At the end of each day, it isrecommended that the Review Teamassemble to consider all of theinformation that it has heard during theday and summarise the evidence tounderstand:

• Areas of good practice and strengthson which the Host City can build

• Areas where further information maybe needed before the peer review visitis finished

• Areas where possiblerecommendations for the future maybe made.

This process will help to inform both theremainder of the visit and the drafting ofthe peer review outcome report.

The two tables below are offered as away of recording the overall findings forthe Essential and the initialrecommendations arising from theactivities experienced during the day.



17

Good practice identified

Justification forassessment

Comments

SUMMARY OF INITIAL FINDINGS

P 1.1 Plan makinga) Does the Host City master plan (orrelevant strategy / plan) include andimplement disaster risk reductionapproaches in line with the SendaiFramework?

b) Alternatively, if the Host City has astand-alone disaster risk reductionplan / policy / strategy in place in linewith the national strategies this canalso demonstrate compliance.

P 1.3 IntegrationIs resilience properly integrated withother key city functions / portfolios?


P 1.2 Organisation, coordination andparticipationIs there a disaster management /preparedness / emergency responseplan (strategy) outlining the Host Citymitigation, preparedness andresponse to local emergencies?

Other


18

Time horizonJustification Description ofareas forpotentialdevelopment

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

E.g. Extent to which data on the city’sresilience context is shared with otherorganisations involved with the city’sresilience.

E.g. Ensure aconsistent flowof informationbetween multi-agencypartners.

E.g. A regularflow ofinformationwould improveunderstandingof risk and aidplanning forpartneragencies.

E.g. Short,medium, long termimplementation.

P 1.1 Plan makinga) The city master plan (or relevantstrategy / plan) includes andimplements disaster risk reductionapproaches in line with the SendaiFramework

b) The city has a stand-alone disasterrisk reduction plan / policy / strategyin place in line with the nationalstrategy which demonstratescompliance

P 1.2 Organisation, coordination andparticipationThere is a multi-agency / sectoralmechanism with appropriate authorityand resources to address disaster riskreduction



19

Time horizonJustification Description ofareas forpotentialdevelopment

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

P 1.3 IntegrationResilience is properly integrated withother key city functions / portfolios

OtherArea / issue


20

NOTES:


21

NOTES:


2

Designed and printed by Agilisys Document Solutions (October ‘18)T: +44 (0)1942 404929 E: [email protected]

Further information is available from: www.Uscore2.eu

ISO22392 is being drafted and will contain further information about peer reviews

ˆˇ - home | undrr › campaign › resilientcities › assets...city learning programmes,...

Documents