Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Governance for Resilience Water Systems 2018


Published on

This describes the work of the Resilience Shift's Governance for Resilience Water Systems project.

Published in: Engineering
  • Whether Miami, Amman, Mexico City, Hull or Cape Town, cities face resilience water governance challenges. This detailed presentation explains the aims and programme plan for this focused work on resilience water governance from the Resilience Shift initiative.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Governance for Resilience Water Systems 2018

  1. 1. Governance for Resilient Water Systems Value Chain Update
  2. 2. Original Opportunity Statement • By the end of 2018, the Resilience Shift team will provide a methodology and tool to help cities across the world improve their water governance to improve their resilience. The methodology and toolkit will map the catchment functions, roles and responsibilities across the catchment, identify governance gaps and suggest governance improvements. • The project will align with the City Water Resilience Framework (CWRF) project including project programme and fieldwork. The methodology and toolkit will be able to be used by cities both involved and not involved in the CWRF project. Partners include the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) and WeAreTelescopic.
  3. 3. Progress March 2018: Framing workshop. May and June 2018:Fieldwork with interviews, focus groups and workshop ( some with tool prototypes, some without, two sprints). July 2018: Two workshops: one to analyse fieldwork and develop long- list of tool functionalities and one to shortlist tool functionalities August 2018: Prepare workshop and refreshed mock-ups for Global Knowledge Exchange event (GKE). Collect feedback from cities. Sprint three. DECISIONPOINT:TODAY DECISIONPOINT:GKE September and October 2018: Finalise the tool DECISIONPOINT:BELLAGIO Phase 2: Additional functionality, pilot projects?
  4. 4. User-centric Design Who will use the tool and its outputs? Why will they use the tool? What do they want the tool to do? Where do they want to use the tool? How should the tool deliver its value?
  5. 5. • Interviews and focus groups: • What do you perceive to be the extent of the city water system? • What part of the urban water system do you have responsibility over and interact with? • What do you think are the strengths and weakness of the way decisions are made for your urban water system? • How could a tool be of value to your city? • Workshops: • Resilience Assessment workshop: map water cycle and stakeholders, structured discussion on tool (three questions), show mock-ups • Governance tool workshop: structured discussion on tool (three questions), show mock-ups • Governance workshop: explain governance in context of resilience, map stakeholders, governance gaps table, governance functions activity • Survey form focused on tool User-centric Design
  6. 6. Fieldwork Summary Amman Miami CDMX Cape Town Hull Total number of people engaged 112 164 46 139 150 Interviews 6 7 2 9 14 Focus Groups 6 7 5 5 11 Site Visits 3 5 1 5 2 Workshops 2 2 1 2 2
  7. 7. Fieldwork Findings Beneficiaries represent a much wider group. • Direct beneficiaries (i.e. using immediate outputs from thetool) include high-level decisionmakers such as politicians and heads of agency, who can leverage tool outputs to define strategy and new policies based on improved information sharing, greater transparency and cross sectoral collaboration. • Indirect beneficiaries include all those who benefit from minimized disruptions to the water system during normal conditions; improved response to shocks and stressors; general efficiencies achieved through improved information sharing; and new voices introduced into the governance decision-making process. Broadly speaking, these include all users of the water system. Direct users include those who are likely to engage with the tool on a regular basis. These include: • Mid-level government decision-makers, such as heads of department, project managers who will benefit from improved / efficient information sharing across departments and agencies • NGOs, advocacy groups who will use the tool to understand local governance processes and access relevant information resources, to engage directly in the water governance process • Academic groups, including research networks and independent researchers who will use the tool to access relevant knowledge resources and share their work for practical results • Private sector actors and industry / trade groups who will use the tool to understand and engage with local governance processes and key decision-makers Direct users are unlikely to include technical specialists, such as CAD / GIS technicians, project engineers, etc. who will likely rely on highly specialized information sources and software.
  8. 8. We have identified the following tool objectives based on engagement with five partner cities: 1. Define the city water system and identify and coordinate key stakeholders – actors (including upstream and downstream actors), infrastructure (including green and grey infrastructure) & administrative extents (including all relevant agencies involved in water resource management) 2. Trace the effect of hazards on urban systems – educate stakeholders, including re: the impacts of shocks and stresses on interdependent infrastructures 3. Identify stakeholders responsibilities (planning processes and governance functions) and identify governance gaps – including relevant local policies and programmes and involved stakeholders 4. Identify existing programmes and plans going on in the city – to ensure that existing plans and policies are taken account of and integrated. 5. Facilitate knowledge-sharing within cities – across diverse actors and remits 6. Develop global community of practitioners and repository of information – facilitate information-sharing between cities to allow cities to learn from other cities, to co-create and adopt innovative solutions to managing water-related challenges Fieldwork Findings
  9. 9. Prioritized Functionalities Medium list of tool functions were developed to a rough level of detail including wireframe models: 1. Stakeholder Mapping 2. System Interdependencies 3. City Water Mapping 4. Programmes and Projects 5. Resource Centre 6. Governance Functions 7. Cross-city Knowledge Sharing Following Relevant functionalities folded into four consolidated functions: 1. Stakeholder Mapping 2. Governance Functions Table 3. Organisation / Programme Links Circle 4. CWRF Wheel Visualization Two other functionalities were identified for follow-up discussion at a later date (potentially Phase 2 development): 3. City Water Mapping 8. Cross-City Knowledge Sharing
  10. 10. Functionalities Roadmap Long list: • Initial list of potential functionalities is developed based on CWRF literature review, early city engagement (Amman, Miami) as well as Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) inputs and relevant experience Medium list: • Reduced list of functionalities is developed based on feedback from final three city engagements (Mexico City), Cape Town, Hull) • Draft UX iterations and wireframes explored by WeAreTelescopic internally and with Hull and Mexico, with most successful iterations presented during Resilience Tool Workshop in July. Short list: • Two July workshops with full team to prioritize functionalities list • WeAreTelescopic to develop functionalities and UX/UI options for presentation to cities in August; UX/UI will be refined based on city partners response May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 Final Functionalities • Final functionalities and UI/UX options are presented at Global Knowledge Exchange (GKE) event for review by partner cities • Developed into full tool for Nov 2018 August 2018
  11. 11. 1) Stakeholder Mapping Goal: To identify water management roles and link responsibilities to the water cycle Description: Using a standard water cycle map, cities can input the names of organisations involved in each aspect of the cycle along with basic contact information, etc.
  12. 12. 1) Stakeholder Mapping Data filtering allows user to identify which assets are impacted by certain shocks or stresses. Additionally, filtering allows users to search particular assets and parties responsible for maintaining these assets.
  13. 13. 1) Stakeholder Mapping Water cycle template is pre-populated but can be customized by city user as needed
  14. 14. 2) Governance Functions Table Governance Function Programme Name Organisation Role CWRF Dimension CWRF Goal Programme Duration Programme Budget Preparedness Miami Sewer Maintenance Plan WASD Responsible Infrastructure & Ecosystems Effective Provision of Critical Services 18 months $100,000 – $1,000,000 Preparedness Miami Sewer Maintenance Plan EPA Informed Infrastructure & Ecosystems Effective Provision of Critical Services 18 months $100,000 – $1,000,000 Coordination Florida Water Management Initiative EPA Consulted Infrastructure & Ecosystems Effective Provision of Critical Services 36 months $1,000,000 + Goal: To identify gaps and identify inconsistencies in city’s water governance Description: Listing key programmes associated with each governance function, including information about budget, duration, etc. The information in this table will can also be shown in more streamlined / graphically appealing ways (to be tested during Global Knowledge Exchange event)
  15. 15. 2) Governance Functions Table National Gov Province/ State Gov Local/City Gov Civic Society Preparedness R A C C I I I Coordination A A C I I I Policy and Strategy R Drought strategy A A A C I I Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed For example, the table inputs can be translated into simple diagrams showing how many organisations are involved in each government function…and where gaps exist (e.g. no organisation is fulfilling one critical RACI role) Organisations involved in each governance function Preliminary Resilience Assessment OECD Lens (lower barrier to entry)
  16. 16. 3) Organisation/Programme Links Circle Goal: To help identify links between organisations and programmes (are there organisations that aren’t communicating that should be? Is your organisation in regular contact with others working on a shared project? Is information sharing occurring between organisations in same governance function?) Description: Visualisation based on information input in Governance Functions Table. User can identify links between different organisations, programmes, etc. A CG E B DF H e.g. what organisations are responsible for the same assets? A CG E B DF H …filtered e.g. by shock (organisations addressing urban flooding)
  17. 17. 4) CWRF Assessment Wheel Health & Wellbeing Goal: Assess overall city water resilience using CWRF wheel, make the process of using CWRF easier by allowing direct data input through digital tool. Description: The tool allows users to answer a series of qualitative / quantitative questions that measure performance according to each goal, using the agreed upon indicators. This information is input directly into the tool and creates a CWRF wheel. Borrows from City Resilience Index (CRI) methodology. Should this be OECD?
  18. 18. Alignment between City Water Resilience Framework and Governance for Resilient Water Systems Project Assessment Tool Governance Tool Methodology Governance Quadrant
  19. 19. Links Resilience Shift website RS Twitter @resilienceshift RS Linkedin Global Knowledge Exchange SIWI World Water Week Partners: SIWI WeAreTelescopic City Water Resilience Framework