Resilience Lessons for Resilience Planners

Last July, six years after it helped establish and fund the highly touted “100 Resilient Cities Program,” the Rockefeller Foundation announced that the program funding would be scaled back significantly, to a mere fraction—just enough to keep some of the “Chief Resilience Officers” the money had supported over the years in place and working.  The program had been, according to a number of sources, a great success; and the Rockefeller announcement came as a shock to those who had come to rely on the funding for staff and project support. 

Source: 100 Resilient Cities web page (see text)

The value of a network

The program, however, succeeded in raising the awareness of the importance of planning for resilience in the urban setting and engaging both municipal leaders and the citizenry at large in an effort to protect lives and property in spite of natural (including climate, biologic and geologic) events and those that are more man-made (like terrorism and cyber attacks). The beauty of the Rockefeller approach was its holistic look at the problems and solutions, including ways to address economic and social issues that are made more obvious during the stress of a serious event. One writer opined:

Now, as cities endeavor to implement plans for disaster-proof  infrastructure, improved civic cohesion, and other projects that tie into their localized definition of “resilience,” they are wondering how they might do so in the absence of the high-profile organization’s robust offerings—financial support, planning expertise, private-sector connections, and a forum to exchange ideas and best practices.

That forum is “the most powerful thing that Rockefeller has created,” said Piero Pelizzaro, the chief resilience officer of Milan, which is in the process of developing its resilience strategy. “Our daily exchange with other CROs and the mutual learning that went on let us make improvements every day.” …Although there isn’t much federal support for climate-change planning in Italy, the biggest loss from Rockefeller won’t be the funding for city staff and local projects, he said: “What we’re really losing here is the network.”

A lot of good came from the funding to-date

The good news is that The Rockefeller Foundation and other non-profits, as well as many of the cities involved in the original program, are seeking (and finding) support to maintain, not only the network, but some of the project-related funding to implement best ideas and strategies.  In fact the now stalled (and apparently inactive) 100 Resilient Cities web page still includes incredibly valuable resources and links to information about hundreds of strategies adopted by 100RC members.

These strategies aren’t so much about applying engineering “fixes” to potential problems, but about rebuilding the social, economic, administrative and cultural infrastructure within the community that will both foster development of those solutions in a natural way and better position each affected citizen with the ability to survive and thrive in spite of an event. The introduction calls these strategies “roadmaps” or “a call to action” and they include the following handful of examples (paraphrased below) I find quite intriguing:

Boston:  Inclusive, collaborative government that offers residents a meaningful role in decision-making & facilitates cross-departmental partnership.  We envision a city that prioritizes community-led processes and community partnerships, where City services are delivered equitably to people and communities, and City government reflects the diverse culture and people it serves.

Glasgow: Build capacity among citizens and decision-makers to apply resilience thinking, promoting civic participation, trust and a resilience culture. We will encourage and support a resilient vision at the heart of every public facing institution to ensure we are strong for the future. Our success is reliant on the systems and institutions that deliver services. To ensure the city runs smoothly, it is essential that everyone receive the support and services they need and that these services are targeted appropriately.

 

Source: 100 Resilient Cities web page (see text)

Kyoto:  Foster economic development that benefits from and fosters Kyoto's cultural heritage and engage the next generation as custodians of traditional culture. Revitalize the economy through culture – creating a fusion of culture, industry and tourism that increases the sustainability of the city.  Promote Kyoto’s manufacturing industry, where tradition and innovation are fused.

New Orleans:  We will embrace our changing environment instead of resisting it. By adapting our city to our natural environment and the risks of climate change, we can create opportunities to thrive. We must align our infrastructure and urban environment to the realities of our delta soils and geography. Rather than resist water, we must embrace it.

Sydney:  We know how to prepare, respond and recover.  Like people everywhere, we rely on infrastructure and essential services that provide our food, energy and water, telecommunications, transport, and manage our waste. They are owned and managed by a patchwork of different organizations, both government and private businesses. All these assets and services are intricately connected and disruptions can have knock-on effects with serious impacts across city systems. As these systems become more complex, it is crucial each organization understands their connections and roles in managing risks.  To address the lack of understanding of risks and interdependencies, we will work to know how to manage risks to prepare, respond, and recover.

Honolulu:  Fostering resilience in the face of natural disasters.  We are one of the most isolated places on Earth. In the event of a natural disaster, disruptions to air or shipping lines could lead to significant delays in emergency response and the delivery of considerable food imports, medicine, and other critical supplies. Our positive actions can help our communities prepare and become more resilient to natural disasters and external shocks by learning from past disasters, improving local infrastructure, and planning for recovery. We want to bounce back quickly, but we can also “bounce forward” in the wake of a disaster by building back smarter, stronger, and in more resilient locations so that we are better prepared for the next event.

Resilience planners should practice what they preach

Fortunately, the ball set in motion by Rockefeller funding will keep moving—particularly in places where outside funding and governmental infrastructure is in place to help support it (like the USA). And it is hoped that those who “have” will continue to help and support others in the worldwide network.  That said, the Rockefeller lesson to all is that resilience planners themselves need to practice resilience.  The same article cited above concludes:

The shuttering of 100 Resilient Cities may also be an indication of the risk of governments relying on private funding for such existentially critical work as planning for natural disasters, social shocks, and climate change.

“Entities working with foundations and philanthropists need to be focused on exit planning from the very beginning of the funding relationship,” said Lucy Bernholz, a senior research scholar at Stanford University’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. “The public should not allow itself to be fooled by philanthropic promises—foundation dollars will always move on.”