natasa manojlovic - "building resilience of communities | governance approach - hamburg"

Building Resilience of Communities Governance approach- Hamburg

Natasa Manojlovic

Erik Pasche †

Hamburg University of Technology

Learning & Action Alliances

New Orleans/Hamburg, 19th March, 2011

Contents

• Intro

• Bottom Up - Governance Approach

• Implementation of the governance approach in the SAWA Project at the Wandse Catchment Area,

Germany

• Lessons learned so far and conclusions

Introduction

� New legislative frameworks (EU Flood Directive, 2007)

Consequences:

� new ideas and concepts are to be developed beyond the traditional FRM

�new technology and methods is required

�active involvement of private and public stakeholders

� Paradigm shift in FM

4 As of resilience

Question: How to get the new concepts&technology

implemented and accepted by the key stakeholders?

Definition: the process of decision-making and the process by

which decisions are implemented (UN – Economic and social commission of Asia and the Pacific)

Governance is a process

Intro- Governance

- It is about how authorities, institutions and social organizations interact with citizens when making decisions

the plan is developed by professionals. Public’s opinion and input is only requested through public hearings and written objections at the end of the approval process necessary

Top-Down

all stakeholders, professionals and public are involved right from the start and together they develop the plan in a continuous collaborative process.

Bottom-Up

Bottom up governance strategy:

(Adapted from Ashley et al, 2009)

� It is a PROCESS not an event!

Governance approach

Governance approach:

Phases are given as:

1. Scoping- Selection of Members, Ties, Trust, Raising awareness, Drivers, Development of shared vision and assessment of the problem

2. Understanding&Envisioning – Toolbox of adaptation (NSM)measures, Development of shared vision of where to get to

3. Experimenting- Formulate options of adaptive flood risk management by NSM, Integrate them to scenarios of integrativeplanning

4. Evaluation- Evaluate effectiveness of responses, Evaluate conflicts and find ways of minimizing them, Consensus Finding

� Knowledge intensive process

� Methods and Tools are required to support it

Governance- Requirements

Objectives:

Phase Development of the shared vision of the problemScoping � Stakeholder analysis (selection and characterisation of key stakeholder

groups and their interactions)

� Building social competences

� Confronting with flood risk and raising awareness

� Understanding the system drivers and pressures, sensitivity, response

Methods and Tools

� Stakeholder Analysis

� Concepts and Tools for raising of risk awareness &Social Learning methods

� Methods and tools for quantification of effects caused by drivers&pressures

� Methods and tool for assessment of the criticality of the system

Material

� Flood Hazard& Risk Maps

� Projections of future development– Climate Chang& Urbanisation

scenarios

� On site assessment of the existing flood risk

1

Objectives:

Phase Development of the shared vision of where to get toUnderstanding and Envisioning

� Inventory of the adaptive measures and their interactions with the

existing plans (e.g WFD)

� Knowledge acquisition through (active) learning

Methods and Tools

� Tools for quantification of the effect of the existing planning procedures

� Methods and tools for delivering knowledge

Material

� Inventory of the best practice of adaptive measures (NSM)

� Existing plans in the area (e.g. Measures of WFD)


1

2

Objectives:

Phase Development of options for FRMPExperimenting � Development of a toolbox of possible measures for flood risk mitigation

for the studied area

� Development of alternatives by combining the single measures into

strategies considering and weighting interests of different stakeholder

groups

� Quantification of their efficiency

Methods and Tools

� Decision support tools for quantification of the effect of NSM

Material

� Maps with all focus areas where the action is needed


1

2

3


Objectives:

Phase Development of options for FRMPTesting & Evaluation

� Identification and discussion on conflicts caused by different interests

of stakeholder groups

� Iterative improvement of the final concept to its final state

Methods and Tools

� Development of Assessment Matrix for MCA

� Methods & Tools for participation in the assessment of conflicts

Material

� Different options of FRMP

1

3

2

4

Methodology

I. Development of fundamental instruments for a collaborative platform in

flood risk management

a) Guidance in role assignmentb) Development of learning and social science instruments ( e.g.

ILGs, Flood Animation Centre)

c) Development of decision support tools (Kalypso Planer-

Client)

II. Capacity Building of Stakeholders

III. Establishment and Operation of collaborative platforms in the case study

area

Hochwasserschutz Hamburg im Zeichen des Klimawandels

Paradigmenwechsel - vom Deichbau zum Risikomanagement

Safety Chain

4As

Understanding how to avoid or improve Capacity Building

Implementing 2nd and 3rd dike lines.

Adaptation by amphibious homes

Adaptation by Marinas with Floating Homes

Planning and Organization of Evacuation Services

Availability of emergency forces

Information about Flood Risk – Failure Modes Analyis

Assessment of criticality of system

Understanding the criticality of system

Restrictions andControl of LandUse

Adaptation by dry- and wetproofing

Result:

Combination of resilience measures

Wandse Catchment Area- Hamburg (~88 km2, 21,5 km)

� Objective: development of a flood risk management plan (EU Flood Directive, 2007)

Implementation of the concept


• Kick of meeting (constitution)

– Increasing profile of the LAAs

– Raising awareness among decision makers/ politicians

• Series of workshops (12-14 Working sessions), once a month/ 2months, 2 h each

– Working sessions following the phases of the governance approach

– Core part of the LAAs

• One site visits

– Assessing the criticality of the system on site

– Embedded into the phases of the governance approach

• Online participation

– Scoping the expertise of the participants

– Consensus finding process

�Leader: responsible authority LSBG (legitimacy- high)�Scientific coordinator: TUHH

Structure:

Leadership:


1. Scoping:� Stakeholder analysis (selection and characterisation of key stakeholder groups and their interactions)� Building social competences� Confronting with flood risk and raising awareness� Understanding the system drivers and pressures, sensitivity, response

Objective: Development of shared vision of the problem

WorkshopsWorkshops

Qualitative analyses

Qualitative analyses

Methods:

1


Categories of Stakeholders

Strategic flood and drainage management

Implementation and maintenance

Urban development

Agriculture

Public transportation infrastructure

Urban and landscape design

Environmental protection and nature conservation

Emergency services

Politicians

NGOs

Public interest groups

Economy and Industry

Research

3

3

0

0

1

1

0

2

2

1

1

4

4

Nr of Pts

�Stakeholder analysis

�LAA configuration /per numbers of stakeholder groups

1

2

1


•Existing Links and Ties of LAA-members: Approval - Relationship

Stateauthority

Stateauthority

District Authorities


PolicyPolicy

PublicPublic

1


•Existing Links and Ties of LAA-members: Participatory Planning

Stateauthority

Stateauthority



PolicyPolicy

PublicPublic

1

� Still underdeveloped


� Social Games – (Balloons and Colours)

� Flip Charts and Discussions

� Group work

1


�Learning Language of Risk

�� E Lectures

�� Lecture &

Discussions

�� Group work

1


Road show

� Flood Animation Studio

1


Perplexed feeling

� Confronting stakeholders with the “real” situation of flood � Demonstration of unstructured reactions in case of a flood event without previously undertaken resilient measures

Flood Animation Box

Flood Cylinders

Multimedia& Flood Maps

1


Understanding the sensitivity of the system:

Bottle neck

1

� On site analysis and risk assessment

Implementaiton of the concept

� Future projections: Climate Change & Urban Planning Projection

� City still tries to extend into the flood plains

� Grabbing at the edges

16,07 m³/s (Redensification of detached buildings

NA-Node: Wandse 15

Station: 7.1680 Km

14,96 m³/s (Status Quo) 1

Quantification of the effect


retreat

retreat

adaptation

1

Conflicts/ synergies with the other measures (WFD) or planning procedures

1) Development of concrete concepts and discussion with the stakeholders

1


Status Quo

Natural Restoration

Dynamic space

Conflicts/ synergies with the WFD

2) Quantification of the effect

Hydraulic Proof- energy gradeline

1


12

E lecture

� Toolbox and Inventory of the best practices of NSM

safety chain - the 4A‘s

(Ashley et al, 2007)

Flood Resilience Measures Flood Probability Reduction Measures


1

32

Development of scenarios based on non structural measures

� Creativity workshops

1.

2.

3-5

6.

7.

12

3

Implementaiton of the concept

Onsite analysis and feasibility of the measures


Maßnahmen Beschreibung ... ...

HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2

HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...

Maßnahmen Beschreibung ... ...HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2

HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...


HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...


HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2

HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...

Maßnahmen Beschreibung ... ...HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2

HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...


HWRMP- M1

HWRMP- M2HWRMP- M3

HWRMP- M4...

Sn, SQ Sn, kw, se

1

32

4

Analysis of the developed scenarios:

Quantification of the effect

FRMP

Assessment of the

conflict potential


Kalypso Planer Client:

Swales Natural restoration of rivers

Kalypso FLORETO:

Quantification of the effect; Tools are required!!

Flood Resilient Built Environment

Project status:

Lessons learned so far & Conclusions

• Social competence crucial for the success• Clear goals and indication on how to achieve them

(transparency in DM process) is important

• Good understanding of the system required (hazard and risk maps have to be available, drivers&pressures assessed)

• Delivering facts important (such as quantification of the effect of pressures&drivers, NSM)

• Combine information with emotions

• The sessions have to be inviting for participants especially in the initial phase, that is learning intensive

• Dare to try something new ☺

Lessons learned so far & Conclusions

But:

• Time and resources intensive process

• Involves a range of tools and methods (social, hydrodynamic, learning) and needs interdisciplinary teams

Still resolving:

• How to include the issue of Climate Change into the planning?

• How detailed to go in discussion on measures?

• Workshops vs. Online participation

Beyond the project:

� Basis for governance for adaptation to climate change (development of a climate adaptation master plan, KLIMZUG project)

http://laa-wandse.wb.tu-harburg.de/

natasa manojlovic - "building resilience of communities | governance approach - hamburg"

Documents