Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Practice, Promise and  International Municipal Cooperation               Pitfallsas a Modality for Transferring Local Best...
What is IMC?International Municipal Cooperation -        Key Features:An evolving form of international public-public part...
International Linking ModalitiesInvolving Local Authorities                              C2C                              ...
Scales and Modalities of C2C Cooperation                           Source: Adapted with modifications from                ...
A growing, global practice 1990s             presen                Gaining support from   Breakout                        ...
What we do not fully know yet…         C2C as a mechanism         for diffusing local best            practices in DRM.1. ...
What this paper is about  A case study of CITYNET’s   experience in transferring  local best practices in DRM          thr...
What this is about exactlyResearch Questions1. How does CITYNET, a regional network of local   authorities in Asia-Pacific...
Data Sources1. CITYNET Databases, 1990-2009   •   Membership master file   •   C2C Activities, different files2. CITYNET P...
Why CITYNET?CITYNET - a Japan-based regionalnetwork of local authorities in the Asia-Pacific established in 1987 through t...
CITYNET’s IMC Approach 4. Results                Source: Adapted from Tjandradewi & Berse,                2011114. Results
4. ResultsTaking stock              4                               Climate      17                       Change          ...
4. ResultsC2C Participants13 Results4.
4. ResultsC2C Profile (1)             Bilateral14 Results4.
4. ResultsC2C Profile (2)4. Results
4. ResultsCooperation Outputs (1)          OutputsCase 1    Yokohama’s flood control method (i.e. use of reservoir and    ...
4. ResultsCooperation Outputs (2)             Outputs Case 5      Reconstruction of two multi-purpose community Case 6    ...
Promise of C2C     Cooperation     C2C cooperation has shown to be an#1     effective, simple and affordable modality for ...
Promise of C2C     Cooperation#2   C2C cooperation has the potential to promote     the South-South transfer of local best...
Promise of C2C     Cooperation     C2C cooperation promotes inclusivity in DRM#3   activities; the participation of a ―thi...
Promise of C2C     Cooperation     C2C cooperation has shown to be a flexible#4   mechanism for effecting changes at any p...
Pitfalls of C2C Cooperation1. Predominance of Yokohama as a resource   city2. Limited reach to small- and medium-sized   c...
Added Value of C2C        Cooperation to Integrative Risk        Management1. Addresses real need: Directly responds to   ...
Concluding RemarksCITYNET’s experience has demonstrated thepromise of C2C cooperation to foster South-South decentralized ...
Concluding RemarksNevertheless, it is not without its ownchallenges; more work needs to be done, suchas in terms of bringi...
Concluding RemarksIn spite these limitations, C2C cooperationremains a viable mechanism that can potentiallyenrich the pra...
Thank you for listening!どうもありがとうございます!For correspondence:kberse@ua.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, krisberse@gmail.comhttp://www.facebook...
4. ResultsCase 1Partner Cities             Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiary: BangkokActivities                 2 technical ...
4. ResultsCase 2Partner Cities       Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiary:                     Phnom PenhActivities           1...
4. Results2 - Yokohama and Banda Aceh     CaseCase 3 Penang and Kuala Lumpur       withPartner Cities          Resources: ...
4. ResultsCases 4 & 5Partner Cities          Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiaries:                        Moratuwa, GalleActi...
4. ResultsCase 6Partner Cities       Resource: Mumbai Beneficiaries:                     KhulnaActivities           1 mate...
4. ResultsCase 7 Partner Cities             Resource: Yokohama                            Beneficiaries: Islamabad,       ...
4. ResultsCase 8 Partner Cities             Resource: Makati                            Beneficiary: Kathmandu Activities ...
4. ResultsCase 9 Partner Cities             Resource: Yokohama, Kobe;                            Beneficiaries: Mumbai, Go...
4. ResultsCase 10 Partner Cities             Resource: Makati                            Beneficiary: Kuala Lumpur Activit...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

International municipal cooperation as a modality for transferring local best practices in disaster risk management: practice, promise and pitfalls

627 vues

Publié le

Kristoffer BERSE1, Yasushi ASAMI2

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

International municipal cooperation as a modality for transferring local best practices in disaster risk management: practice, promise and pitfalls

  1. 1. Practice, Promise and International Municipal Cooperation Pitfallsas a Modality for Transferring Local BestPractices in Disaster Risk Management Kristoffer B. BERSE Dept. of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo
  2. 2. What is IMC?International Municipal Cooperation - Key Features:An evolving form of international public-public partnership between local 1. Linking structure -authorities in two or more countries, with Internationalor without the support of other actors, 2. Primary actors –where the primary goal is to enhance the Local authorities ofcapacities of one or both partners citiesthrough the sharing and, where 3. End goal – Bestappropriate, adaptation of best practices, practice transferbased on the principles of trust and 4. Guiding principles –equality. Trust and equality 5. External support –Also known in the literature as City-to- Important but not aCity Cooperation (C2C) ―sine qua non‖ for cooperation1. Introduction
  3. 3. International Linking ModalitiesInvolving Local Authorities C2C cooperation is just one of the many ways by which cities connect with each other internationally.1. Introduction
  4. 4. Scales and Modalities of C2C Cooperation Source: Adapted with modifications from CITYNET (1998).1. Introduction
  5. 5. A growing, global practice 1990s presen Gaining support from Breakout UNDP, World Bank t decadea decentralized 70% of cities worldwide GFDRR’s South-South Program, JICA, variant of are engaged in UNISDR Making Cities international C2C Resilient campaign, etc development (UCLG 2010) cooperation(Hafteck 2003)1. Introduction
  6. 6. What we do not fully know yet… C2C as a mechanism for diffusing local best practices in DRM.1. Introduction
  7. 7. What this paper is about A case study of CITYNET’s experience in transferring local best practices in DRM through C2C2. About the Study
  8. 8. What this is about exactlyResearch Questions1. How does CITYNET, a regional network of local authorities in Asia-Pacific, employ C2C cooperation to meet the DRM needs of its city members?2. What are the scope, modalities, linking structure and outputs of these partnerships?3. And learning from CITYNET’s experience, what are the prospects and challenges of C2C cooperation in enhancing the DRM capacities of local authorities?4. Can it be a complementary mechanism for the advancement of integrative risk management at the local level?2. About the Study
  9. 9. Data Sources1. CITYNET Databases, 1990-2009 • Membership master file • C2C Activities, different files2. CITYNET Publications • Newsletters: CityVoice, 1993-2009;CityVoices, 2010; Clusters Update, 2006-2010; eNews, 2002-2010 • Annual and Decadal reports • Other documents (e.g. Guidelines for Transferring Effective Practices, 1998; project reports; etc.)3. Methodology
  10. 10. Why CITYNET?CITYNET - a Japan-based regionalnetwork of local authorities in the Asia-Pacific established in 1987 through thejoint efforts of UNDP, UNESCAP, etc. Oldest proponent of C2C as a formal programme in Asia Received the UN-HABITAT Scroll of Honour in 2002 for work on C2C Has the most active membership among Asian city networks for the environment (Nakamura et al. 2010) Accessible- Secretariat is in Yokohama Source: Nakamura et al., 2010 3. Methodology
  11. 11. CITYNET’s IMC Approach 4. Results Source: Adapted from Tjandradewi & Berse, 2011114. Results
  12. 12. 4. ResultsTaking stock 4 Climate 17 Change Total no. of MDG C2C cases: 66 38 Disaster No. of disaster- 10 Infrastructure related cases: Unspecified 10 15Distribution of C2C Projects by Cluster, 1990-200912 Results4.
  13. 13. 4. ResultsC2C Participants13 Results4.
  14. 14. 4. ResultsC2C Profile (1) Bilateral14 Results4.
  15. 15. 4. ResultsC2C Profile (2)4. Results
  16. 16. 4. ResultsCooperation Outputs (1) OutputsCase 1 Yokohama’s flood control method (i.e. use of reservoir and ―retention ponds‖ for rainwater) was adopted to improve Bangkok’s own ―monkey cheek‖ strategy; application handbook and computer programme was developed and distributed nationallyCase 2 No reported concrete outputCase 3 Development of reconstruction plans for a local market and commemoration park, as well as a detailed plan for an integrated traffic management system, a proposal for the purification of natural water, and technical advice on housing reconstruction; signing of a formal agreement of cooperation between Yokohama and Banda AcehCase 4 Reconstruction of two multi-purpose community centers and basic utilities (e.e. pumping stations, toilets) distribution of relief 4. Results
  17. 17. 4. ResultsCooperation Outputs (2) Outputs Case 5 Reconstruction of two multi-purpose community Case 6 centers and basic utilities (e.e. pumping stations, toilets); distribution of relief goods Case 7 A set of DRM recommendations presented to Islamabad CDA; Construction of a safe school in Muzzafarabad Case 8 Formulation of Kathmandu’s risk-sensitive land use plan, sectoral profile and sample zoning ordinance; set-up and training of DM unit Case 9 Formulation of DRM-related action plans Case Technical advice on disaster town watching and 10 community-level DRR mainstreaming4. Results
  18. 18. Promise of C2C Cooperation C2C cooperation has shown to be an#1 effective, simple and affordable modality for transferring DRM best practices at the local level, be it in the form of a specific knowledge, skills, policy, program or technology. Ex: Yokohama on Bangkok Yokohama on Banda Aceh Makati on Kathmandu
  19. 19. Promise of C2C Cooperation#2 C2C cooperation has the potential to promote the South-South transfer of local best practices in DRM. Ex: Yokohama, Kuala Lumpur and Penang on Banda Aceh Makati and Kathmandu Mumbai and Khulna Yokohama on Moratuwa and Galle, with HELP-O and SEVANATHA
  20. 20. Promise of C2C Cooperation C2C cooperation promotes inclusivity in DRM#3 activities; the participation of a ―third wheel‖ in the form of an NGO, municipal association, university or funding organization enriches the partnership Ex: URDI and AIM in Banda Aceh PIEDAR in Islamabad HELP-O in Galle and SEVANATHA in Moratuwa Kobe University and MAS in Kuala Lumpur EMI in Kathmandu JICA in the Yokohama/Kobe training program
  21. 21. Promise of C2C Cooperation C2C cooperation has shown to be a flexible#4 mechanism for effecting changes at any point in the DRM cycle. Ex: Assistance following the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, and the 2009 Cyclone Aila Makati-Kathmandu on DRR Yokohama and Bangkok
  22. 22. Pitfalls of C2C Cooperation1. Predominance of Yokohama as a resource city2. Limited reach to small- and medium-sized cities that are at risk3. Limited funding for more meaningful exchanges4. Difficulties in monitoring and evaluating long- term impacts
  23. 23. Added Value of C2C Cooperation to Integrative Risk Management1. Addresses real need: Directly responds to the capacity needs of local authorities in DRM2. Evidence-based: Concretely shows how— and why—DRM can work at the local level.3. Empowering: Utilizes local authorities themselves as the sources of learning and tested best practices4. Inclusive: Encourages partnership with other stakeholders whether as additional beneficiaries or co-resources
  24. 24. Concluding RemarksCITYNET’s experience has demonstrated thepromise of C2C cooperation to foster South-South decentralized developmentcooperation, including the engagement of thoseoutside the local government apparatus.
  25. 25. Concluding RemarksNevertheless, it is not without its ownchallenges; more work needs to be done, suchas in terms of bringing in more cities, especiallysmall and intermediate cities, into whatCampbell (2012) called as the ―cloud of trust;‖augmenting funding at the network and citylevel; enhancing the cooperation experience;and strengthening monitoring and evaluationmechanisms.
  26. 26. Concluding RemarksIn spite these limitations, C2C cooperationremains a viable mechanism that can potentiallyenrich the practice of integrative riskmanagement, as it addresses the growing DRMconcerns of local authorities by takingadvantage of the most important resource attheir disposal: themselves.
  27. 27. Thank you for listening!どうもありがとうございます!For correspondence:kberse@ua.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, krisberse@gmail.comhttp://www.facebook.com/kberse
  28. 28. 4. ResultsCase 1Partner Cities Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiary: BangkokActivities 2 technical advisory services, 1 study visitHazard / DRM Focus Flood / MitigationGeopolitical orientation North-SouthLinking structure Bi-nodalOther participants NoneYear 1997, 1999, 2001Results Yokohama’s flood control method (i.e. use of reservoir and ―retention ponds‖ for rainwater) was adopted to improve Bangkok’s own ―monkey cheek‖ strategy; application handbook and computer programme was developed and distributed nationally 28 Results 4.
  29. 29. 4. ResultsCase 2Partner Cities Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiary: Phnom PenhActivities 1 study visitHazard / DRM Flood / MitigationFocusGeopolitical North-SouthorientationLinking structure Bi-nodalOther participants NoneYear 2004Results No reported concrete output29 Results4.
  30. 30. 4. Results2 - Yokohama and Banda Aceh CaseCase 3 Penang and Kuala Lumpur withPartner Cities Resources: Yokohama, Kuala Lumpur, Penang Beneficiaries: Banda AcehActivities Technical assistance involving 2 technical advisory services, 3 training with study visitsHazard / DRM focus Tsunami, Earthquake / Relief, Recovery, Preparedness, MitigationGeopolitical orientation North-South, South-SouthLinking structure Multi-nodalOther participants URDI, AIMYear 2005-2008Results Development of reconstruction plans for a local market and commemoration park, as well as a detailed plan for an integrated traffic management system, a proposal for the purification of natural water, and technical advice on housing reconstruction; signing of a formal agreement of cooperation between Yokohama and Banda Aceh 30 30 4. Results
  31. 31. 4. ResultsCases 4 & 5Partner Cities Resource: Yokohama; Beneficiaries: Moratuwa, GalleActivities 1 material aidHazard / DRM Focus Tsunami, Earthquake / Relief, RecoveryGeopolitical orientation North-South, South-SouthLinking structure Multi-nodalOther participants SEVANATHA, HELP-OYear 2005-2007Results Reconstruction of two multi-purpose community centers and basic utilities (e.e. pumping stations, toilets) distribution of relief goods 31 Results 4.
  32. 32. 4. ResultsCase 6Partner Cities Resource: Mumbai Beneficiaries: KhulnaActivities 1 material aidHazard / DRM Cyclone / ReliefFocusGeopolitical South-SouthorientationLinking structure Bi-nodalOther participants NoneYear 2009Results Distribution of 2Million water purification32 Results4. tablets
  33. 33. 4. ResultsCase 7 Partner Cities Resource: Yokohama Beneficiaries: Islamabad, Muzzafarabad Activities 3 technical advisory services, 1 material aid Hazard/DRM focus Earthquake / Recovery, Preparedness Geopolitical orientation North-South, South-South Linking structure Multi-nodal Other participants PIEDAR Year 2006-2009 Results A set of recommendations presented to Islamabad CDA; Construction of3333 4. Results elementary school in Muzzafarabad
  34. 34. 4. ResultsCase 8 Partner Cities Resource: Makati Beneficiary: Kathmandu Activities 1 technical advisory services, 1 study visit Hazard/DRM focus Earthquake / Preparedness, Mitigation Geopolitical orientation South-South Linking structure Multi-nodal Other participants EMI Year 2008 Results Formulation of Kathmandu’s risk- sensitive land use plan, sectoral profile and sample zoning ordinance; set-up3434 and training of DM unit 4. Results
  35. 35. 4. ResultsCase 9 Partner Cities Resource: Yokohama, Kobe; Beneficiaries: Mumbai, Gorontalo, Kathmandu, Makati, Colombo Activities 1 training with several study visits Hazard / DRM focus General / Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, Recovery Geopolitical orientation North-South Linking structure Multi-nodal Other participants JICA Year 2003 Results Formulation of DRM-related action plans3535 4. Results
  36. 36. 4. ResultsCase 10 Partner Cities Resource: Makati Beneficiary: Kuala Lumpur Activities 1 technical advisory services Hazard / DRM focus General / Preparedness Geopolitical orientation South-South Linking structure Multi-nodal Other participants KU, MAS Year 2009 Results Technical advice on disaster town watching and community-level DRR mainstreaming3636 4. Results

×