Resilience Planning and Project Finance Process:
1
Facilitate Stakeholder Consultation and Commitment

Urban Resilience Roadmap
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
Facilitate Stakeholder Consultation and Commitment
Introduction Competencies/Skills Tools Tips Supporting Entities Potential Outputs
Introduction

Two of the most fundamental determinants for successful resilience planning and implementation are stakeholder buy-in and executive support and sponsorship.  Thus the first step of the Resilience Planning and Project Finance Process is to secure a mandate from the city government, and to establish and institutionalize mechanisms of stakeholder participation which embody principles of transparency and accountability.  These mechanisms will persist throughout the three phases of the process. 

Stakeholder engagement involves identifying vulnerable groups, increasing public awareness of the planning processes, as well as explaining and publicizing the concept of resilience. Cities should consider and engage with the following entities in the initial stage of the RPPF process (note that this list is not exhaustive):

  • Local elected officials (e.g., mayors and vice-mayors);
  • City/municipal department representatives and officials;
  • Local and regional non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society representatives;
  • Academic and research institutions;
  • Representatives of marginalized communities or groups;
  • Private sector representatives from different economic and trade sectors; and
  • Other sector-specific or context specific stakeholders

Executive support and sponsorship is also a critical element.  Support from the mayor or regional head, as well as backing from local legislators will establish a mandate and scope of tasks, along with the authority and budgetary resources needed to execute planning processes and subsequent policy and project tasks.  Executive support will also help to build a bridge between planning and implementation.  Related to this is the need to establish an “institutional home” within the existing government structure, and operating principles that are agreeable to all stakeholders.

Once stakeholder buy-in and meaningful support from the city government is achieved, the city can begin to develop the formal procedures and institutional structure through which the process will be implemented.   These discussions are often facilitated through Shared Learning Dialogues.  Questions to consider include:

  • How does the process integrate with the established planning and budgeting framework of the city?
  • Which department/division will have lead responsibility for managing the process? What other departments will support the process?
  • What is the decision making process? Who has authority to make decisions and what decisions will need clearances from other government agencies?
  • What is the strategy to engage stakeholders on a continuing basis? How will stakeholder groups be engaged if decisions do not go their way?
  • How will the strategy development process be funded?  Which entity will serve as the lead agency?
Competencies/Skills

Requirements for this step include the following:

  • Administrative and decision making authority in a municipal department/appointee to manage and lead the process;
  • Adequate budgetary resources and lead agency;
  • Identification of marginalized/traditionally underrepresented communities;
  • Stakeholder engagement and facilitation; and
  • Communications and outreach
Tools/Resources
Tips

Ensuring stakeholder engagement and participation, executive support, and adequate human and financial resources has proven to help overcome some of the most common institutional and governance barriers.  These include:

  • “Silo thinking”: Isolated government departments and sector-based structures of agencies can make coordination difficult.  Much of the success of the resilience building process will be through establishing bridges between actors and agencies that do not normally have a history of working together;
  • Institutionalization and mainstreaming of resilience for sustained results requires political leadership and procedural legitimacy;
  • Attitudes and values: this includes a lack of interest/awareness in building resilience, the inability to accept change, narrow self-interests, and a status-quo mindset; 
  • Lack of commitment to resilience building processes: building resilience is a cross-sectoral and multi-scalar endeavor.  This means that it is not the responsibility of one specific agency or department.  In other words, lack of resilience is “everyone’s problem”, and so administratively it becomes no one’s problem;
  • Lack of statutory authority/clear mandate: in many cases there is no clear legal basis for local governments to take action on building resilience and related issues such as climate change adaptation.  This can lead to institutional paralysis; and 
  • Highly vertical planning processes tend to reduce overall resilience.  Broadening the base of participation in resilience planning enhances overall outcomes. 
Supporting Entities/Processes
  • Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET);
  • Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN);
  • 100 Resilient Cities; and
  • UN-Habitat Cities and Climate Change Initiative
Potential Outputs
  • Decree of support from city executive and directive to city agencies;
  • Formal charter for resilience building committee to guide resilience planning and project finance process;
  • Mainstreaming of resilience strategy development process within the planning and budgeting framework of the city;
  • Allocation of financial resources to support initial activities;
  • Designation of a lead appointee/municipal department for the process; and
  • Formal collaborations universities, NGOs and civil society organizations