Safe Cities 1

Developing and implementing a city-wide disaster risk

reduction agenda

Session 3World Bank Institute

Fouad Bendimerad, Ph.D., P.E

Safe Cities 2

Objectives

To set up a systematic mechanism for managing and reducing disaster risk at local level;

To put in place a systemic process for understandingrisk parameters and options for reducing their impact;

To mainstream disaster risk reduction within institutions;

To engage stakeholders and communities in the disaster risk reduction process;

To encourage and enable communities to achieve acceptable levels of risk.

Safe Cities 3

The four cornertones of mitigation

The implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction (“DRR”) requires actions along four parallel tracks:

Disaster risk reduction is a long-term endeavor that is anchored on the knowledge of risk and vulnerabilities.

Disaster Risk Reduction

Implementation of Mitigation

A Culture of Prevention

CoherentPublic Policy

Actions

Institutional Commitment

Safe Cities 4

DRR – local government intervention

Disaster Risk Reduction

Coherent Public Policy Actions: Based on rational risk parameters and broad consultation with stakeholders; consistent with central government policies

Institutional Commitment: Commitment from governmental and non- governmental institutions to support policy implementation; cross-functionalintegration and understanding of distribution of responsibilities & resources.

Commitment to Mitigation: Implementation of a process for competent construction and safe urban planning.

Developing a Culture of Prevention: Involving the stakeholders; communicating and raising awareness; improving governance and enhancing capacity.

Safe Cities 5

The disaster risk management master plan model The Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (“DRMMP”) is

provided as a concept for integrated disaster risk management.

It is particularly suitable for complex urban regions (i.e., megacities, metropolitan agglomerations, and other large cities).

Like any master plan, the DRMMP enables a comprehensive and integrated approach to dealing with disasters; it also requires institutional engagement and approval for its implementation.

DRMMP deals both with the decisions on action and the establishment of processes and mechanisms for implementation.

Safe Cities 6

“DRMMP” Model

Response and

Recovery Action Plan

Preparedness and

Awareness Action Plan

Mitigation and

Prevention Action Plan

Institutional Building

Action Plan

Pilot Studies

Disaster Risk Management Master Plan

“DRMMP”

Disaster Risk Assessment

Risk Parameters

The DRMMP concept is used by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality for the management of its earthquake risk(see case study No. 1).

Safe Cities 7

Disaster risk assessment (DRA)

Risk Assessment should be very detailed and should encompass all risk components:

Buildings, including essential facilities and those of key services

Health care facilities and educational facilities; Transportation systems and other infrastructure (e.g.,

dams); Utilities (power, gas, water, waste water, and

communication); Social losses (casualties, displaced people); Economic losses (direct and indirect);

Determination of high risk areas; Determination of evacuation roads and potential

for fires, explosions and hazardous material release;

Safe Cities 8

Disaster response Disaster response planning

Action Plan Items Real-time Damage Estimation Disaster Resource Allocation Resources Deployment Emergency Communication Disaster Monitoring Communication Protocols Health Care Delivery Urban Search & Rescue

Safe Cities 9

Disaster recovery planning

Action Plan Items

Housing & Reconstruction Infrastructure Repair Funding & Capital Allocation Organizational Recovery Health Care Delivery Victim Needs

Safe Cities 10

Disaster preparedness

Action Plan ItemsAction Plan Items

Scenario Analysis Scenario Analysis Mobilization/Contingency Mobilization/Contingency PlansPlans Early Warning SystemsEarly Warning Systems TrainingTraining Community PreparednessCommunity Preparedness Organizational AnalysisOrganizational Analysis Disaster LegislationDisaster Legislation Risk PrioritizationRisk Prioritization Locations for SheltersLocations for Shelters Identify Hazardous SitesIdentify Hazardous Sites Identify Critical NetworksIdentify Critical Networks

Safe Cities 11

Disaster mitigation

Mitigation

Building Code Regulations Building Code

Enforcement Land-Use Planning Urban Renovation Mitigation Incentives Risk Transfer and

Insurance Capacity Enhancement

ReductionReduction vs vs. Cost. Cost

AnnualAnnualProbabilityProbability

$$11 Potential LossPotential Loss

ProjectProjectRisk CurveRisk Curve

ConstantConstant XX

$$22

PostPostMitigationMitigation

MITIGATIONMITIGATION

$1 = Not acceptable$2 = Acceptable$$1 1 = Not acceptable= Not acceptable$$22 = Acceptable = Acceptable

Safe Cities 12

Use of information technology

Information and communication technology (ICT) is changing the way cities are managed and the way organizations communicate and share information.

The ability to collect, query and display information makes ICT a powerful tool for disaster risk management of urban agglomerations.

ICT allows risk parameters in maps and reports to be shared across organizations, and used for policy setting

It communicates risk to stakeholders in such a way that they can relate to it and understand it.

ICT enables integration of different parameters (land-use planning, urban infrastructure, population data, and essential facilities) in a single spatial analysis of risk.

Safe Cities 13

Use of information technology

The relationship between ICT and Disastermanagement resides in three areas: Disaster risk assessment – ICT is used in the

development of the data and the display of the outcome from the risk analysis;

Disaster risk communication – ICT is used to discuss risk parameters with the different stakeholders and to understand trade-offs anddisaster risk reduction options;

Capacity building – ICT is a powerful tool for training and institutional strengthening.

Local governments should integrate ICT with disaster risk management.

Safe Cities 14

Key benefits of a master plan

Provides a comprehensive and rational process for systemic integration of risk management inlocal government structures;

Consistent with other city planning processes

(in particular urban planning); Provides metric to measure progress and

perform corrections; Excellent tool for improving knowledge and

for communication between stakeholders; Mechanism for coordinating government

actions and policies; Mainstreams disaster risk management

within institutions.

Safe Cities 15

Challenges for implementation

Mitigation is a uniquely difficult process that has few

immediate visible benefits. It requires: integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines; cross-organizational and cross-sectorial integration; significant resources; difficult choices; interventions at many levels of government and civil society.

However, mitigation is good policy. It preserves assets and improves human capital.

Safe Cities 16

Building a framework for implementation

It requires: Building internal capability to understand risk and

communicate it to stakeholders, developing parametersfor public policy

Developing coalitions involving academia, business, media

Consulting with stakeholders and allowing for input from community

Starting small – pilot studies are a good way to check process and improve

Providing mechanisms for sustainability.

Safe Cities 17

Resilience and sustainability

No program will succeed without mechanisms forsustainability. It requires: Long term planning and coordination.

Resources and enhanced capacity. Community resources through partnership

Academia (most valuable resource); Business and professional organizations; Media; Community organizations;

Turning “Demand” into “Supply” or “Liability “ into

“Assets” through communication and outreach

Safe Cities 18

Making the commitment

The development of a safer environment implies accepting the common responsibility to build the moral imperative, to mobilize the political will, and to involve communities in their development and resource allocation processes.

Without such commitment, disasters will keep colliding with human development in ways that cause pain, suffering and tremendous losses.

“More effective prevention strategies would save not only tens of billions of dollars, but save tens of thousands of lives. Funds currently spent on intervention and relief could be devoted to enhancing equitable and sustainable development instead, which would further reduce the risk for war and disasters. Building culture of prevention is not easy. While the costs of prevention have to be paid in the present, its benefits lie in a distant future. Moreover, the benefits are not tangible; they are the disasters that did not happen.”

Koffi Annan, General Secretary of the United Nations